Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Tuesday, July 22nd meeting of the Norton Planning Board. The public is welcome to participate in person or remotely. We're in person here at the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street. You can also join online via Zoom in the link that's
in the agenda. Any questions can be emailed ahead of time to town staff as listed in the agenda. I'm going to call this meeting to order. We have the full board here in person tonight, which is nice. As far as planning board business and
policies, we do have some mylars to sign at the end. So, have no one leave quickly after the meeting. So, we can sign some myars, please. Uh, bills and warrants. Brian, we have one bill to pass down as we're talking. We do have uh five or six sets of
minutes. I'm going to hold those till after the uh public hearings. I'm going to take the uh public hearing slightly out of notice because we have one continuence. So for site plan review SPR16 and special
permit 24 for 260 South Washington Street, the owner is still working through peerreview comments and they've requested a continuence to August 5th. So the chair would entertain a motion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in
favor? >> I >> opposed. Next item on the agenda, special permit 23114 West Main Street. The owner is Steve Sakashia. Hopefully I said that right. Applicant is New England sign. The application is for electronic message
center sign. Paul, do we have anyone online? I don't see anyone jumping up in person. >> Who's going to be talking and presenting? Paul's got the uh >> you want to come right up to the microphone, please. And
>> and again, if you could just state your name and who you're with for the record, please. >> Mary Beth Moriotti, New England Sign Services. >> Thank you, Mary Beth. >> Paul, do you want to give a quick intro to this? Mary Beth, do you want to do a quick uh >> Paul's going to pull up?
>> Yeah, I'd love to. >> So, uh Steve approached me. Um he has an LED sign that he would like to use. So, we decided we would configure his existing sign. Remove it. Use the same
post because they're still in very good shape. put a ID sign illuminated double-sided sign box on top and install the LED board underneath it. And it's basically the same size as the sign he
has now. All the electrical there, so we don't have to worry about that. We don't have to dig holes for concrete. We don't do any of that. We're just taking the old sign down, putting up a smaller ID sign,
and installing an LED sign. >> Sounds >> Any questions? >> Sounds pretty straightforward. I'm sure you're going to still get a building permit after this. >> Oh, yes. >> Um, yes, we do have, before I go for questions, by law has several um things
that the sign can do and can't do. Have you reviewed those? We have a >> We have reviewed those. Steve and I have talked about it. Um, >> so those will be in the conditions most likely of our approvals or anything. >> Of course. Yes. >> Okay. We can go through those if anybody
wishes or we can uh take questions as they go from the board. Tim, did you have something? >> I was going to say I think those conditions are talk about how bright it can be. Text. It's not supposed to have any animations. So, it's just supposed to be like a static image. Even something like an animated American flag
waving is tactically against the bylaws because it's >> nothing can >> apparently going to distract drivers. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Can't can't cycle quicker than 10 seconds. Um maximum size. This this electronic
message center shall have a default mechanism that freezes the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs. Um, that has to be I believe in writing from the manufacturer. Or is that the brightness? No, sorry. The EM EMC shall contain a brightness
regulator which does not allow the sign to register more than three foot candles over ambient light levels and shall be accompanied by a manufacturer's certification of such compliance. >> Cool. >> We comply. >> Beautiful. So, yeah, that'll have to be
submitted to the building inspector. >> Sure, I can do that. questions from the board? >> No, I'm good. >> Just made that pretty clear. >> Hey, Beth, anything else you want to say? If not, any members of the public
have anything to say or anybody on Zoom? Paul, I don't see anyone on. >> Um, just that I think it would look good and it would help his business and I hope you say yes. I don't see anyone jumping up in public
or on Zoom. The ch >> say motion to close the public hearing. >> We have a motion to close the public hearing. May we have a second? All in favor? >> I I opposed. >> Public hearing's closed. Pleasure of the board.
Motion to approve with conditions from the uh electronic sign bylaw and standard conditions as appropriate. >> Second. >> Second. >> We have a motion to include our standing conditions and the EMC language that's
in our bylaw and a second. All in favor? >> I I opposed. >> Abstain. >> Okay. >> Can't be any easier than that. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. Paul, did you want to? >> Yep. So, we'll just have the decision drafted up and we'll have the the clerk
sign it probably later this week. No, not not later this week. Sometime next week. >> Okay. >> Maybe the chair will take care of it. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> The clerk's here. >> I will be on vacation and won't be back
until August 4th. >> I don't want to hear it. The chair will gladly sign it. Next item on our agenda, special permit 16 for one Dean Street. The owner is JCS Holdings LLC, the applicants Morris
Engineering Company. This application is for 24 residential units and it's been continued multiple times since February. >> How you doing tonight, sir? >> Doing well. >> State your name and who you're with, please, for the record. >> Sure. My name is Gregory Morse. I'm a registered engineer with Morris
Engineering. >> Give us a minute. We'll pull up the uh >> Sorry. >> I'm not sure if you intended to grab the easel when you came up, but there is an easel over there. If you wanted to throw the board up there, >> we we should be able to put up whatever you were presenting. It's up to you. I I
believe Paul has it in electronic format. So >> I guess I'll I'll start while he pulls that up. Absolutely. Um again, Gregory Morris. I'm a registered engineer with Morris Engineering representing the property owner and applicant JSC Holdings. Um, I'll start by thanking the
board for your your patience and continuences that we've requested thus far on this project. Um, my engineering firm didn't do the initial layout on this, but my understanding is is uh a previous engineer had done a bunch of review with various town departments,
etc. Um, which led to our initial filing back in December. Um, and since then there's either been some bylaw changes or some staff changes at the the zoning level um that have required some modification for this project and redesign. Um, this spring we also have
been working with conservation commission to address uh some outstanding conservation issues before we dove into a full uh redesign of this project. So, what I'm what I'm presenting to you tonight and what you see up here on the screen um is
currently where we're at. Um this is going to be a special permit request in accordance with article 19, which is the affordable housing bylaw for a 24 unit residential townhouse development. Of the 24 units, um 10% are required to be
affordable. In this case, that would be three units uh would be affordable units. The existing site here is 13 1/2 acres in size. 8.6 acres of that is upland area. The wetlands have gone to the
conservation commission and have been approved through what's called an ANRAD process at this point. So you'll see that looking at the screen on the right hand side is Dean Street. Um on the left hand side of the screen highlighted in
blue is the limit of the bordering vegetated wetlands at the rear of the property. Um kind of centrally located in the middle of the property is a smaller wetland and isolated wetland under the town's uh conservation bylaw.
The property is largely undeveloped with the exception of right up front on Dean Street. There is a commercial garage there with a roofing operation out of it um with a small parking area. We're not in any FEMA zones, endangered species districts. We're not in any
groundwater or aquafer protection zones, but for purposes of zoning, we are in two different zoning districts for the town. um from Dean Street back approximately a third of the way. The front third on the eastern side is the village commercial district and then the
back of the property is the residential 60 zoning district. So what we've laid out would be the townhouse project. Um we'd be coming in with a private driveway. It's approximately
1300 linear feet with a culde-sac on the end of it. It provides access to the 24 town houses propo proposed as condo um ownership. There would be a homeowners association or a condominium association which would be responsible for
maintenance of the roadway. The unit breakdown you'll see that there's one duplex building. There are six three unit buildings in one 4unit multifamily building. Um, the sizes of the units themselves range
from 1,800 to 2500 square ft². They would be 2 to three bedrooms. They would be serviced by on-site septic system. We've done the perk tests with the board of health witnessed out at the site. Um, pretty much all less than 2 minutes an inch sandy uh soil, very suitable for a
septic system. >> The drainage we've uh broken up into three smaller drainage systems. Um standard in the roadway we would have catch basins and particle separators and then there are three different drainage basins. Um one on the north property
line, one kind of on the southwest corner of the project and then one out back adjacent to the larger wetland that would be the largest of the drainage basins and it would discharge on site. Um this project as you see it retains
approximately 50% of the site as open space. there's 9.15 acres um that are retained as open space. So I think tonight my proposal is just to kind of get your initial feedback and then we would
request a continuence to your first meeting of September if that's possible so that we can kind of finalize the the nuts and bolts of the engineering piece. Um but trying to get your feedback and get in front of you because it has been a while since we made this initial application.
Thank you. >> So, yeah, I've got a few questions right off the bat. This has changed substantially from the initial. Um, right off the bat, I was going to say this is merely a discussion because this isn't a stamp plan. It's not signed by you or anything. So, >> it really doesn't hold any weight for me
until it's a actual stamp plan. >> Um, it's obviously not a full set of plans either. >> Um, >> it's just a layout. >> Um, so I got a few items for you to check off. The first thing How you proposing to build triplexes in
the R60 zone? They are not allowed. >> Do it. >> The triplexes in the R60 zone. Um, >> duplexes are allowed by a special permit. Multif family is not allowed in the Gotcha. So, I guess we would be looking at
modifying the request and making those duplexes in the back. I believe there's eight units out back. Um, so rather than three buildings, we'd go to four duplexes and add the special permit request. >> All this could have been worked out ahead of time with town staff, but I guess no one wanted to meet with town staff ahead of time and to go through
these changes. Um, so yeah, it's not a stamp plan. Why don't we need a Why don't we have a site plan filed for this? There's no site plan review filed. >> Sure. We we made the initial one and then since then we've revised it to
this. Um, it was recommended that we come in next week for a sit down with department heads. Um, >> but your your client refused. >> I I I know he is. >> It's that important. You guys come in. >> It seems like we're way ahead of
ourselves here and almost wasting our time. Um, >> my third question or fourth, whatever. Um, >> we're going to be applying under the affordable housing. Uh, do we have enough acreage to come in under the affordable housing? I don't believe we do.
>> Paul, am I correct? >> Sorry, what am I thinking that we're short on acreage? >> Well, one question we have to determine is in the R60 area. Can this really looks more like a
cluster and can we use article 19 for clustering? And you I haven't had a chance to fully go through this, but um if if not, then they would need to try to apply for
the clustering provision for duplexes. >> I I'd also like to put in that the cluster developments are not allowed in village commercial. We've discussed that multiple buildings could be, >> but that would also mean that you're applying for five multif family
buildings within the village commercial, not a cluster development. >> The mult the multif family we saw as an allowed um building in the village center. >> It's a special village commercial. Special permit. >> Yeah. So, you're asking for five special permit multif family buildings.
>> Correct. Just to make sure you got your, you know, cross your tees, dot your eyes. It can't be a as a cluster development in the village commercial section. No, >> go ahead, Tim. >> I was going to, um, have you done just
obviously this is a split lot in terms of zoning. What would be allowed in this lot by right if you were you if you were to develop it from that perspective? So, I I don't believe there's a density
requirement in the VC district. The density requirements in the um R60 zone, um we have it that you could get a total of eight units in the RC zone uh resident 60 zone.
>> Okay. And then the the village commercial, you haven't >> Okay. No, >> just trying to understand the the contrast between what you're asking for for relief and then what you could potentially build by right on the site. >> I I would say one thing to go by the by
right in the village commercial would be uh a a commercial use over 10,000 ft or 25 or more vehicles >> which exists there now. Yeah. >> Which that would be like the next special permit criteria. I I guess I
don't know what is it 16 units or something like that would be more than 25 cars. >> Yeah. The the other question I was going to have just for the applicant, this is more of a comment. You were trying to dump out that common driveway into what is arguably the worst
visibility spot in Norton roads. >> The worst intersection. you're because if you're coming down Dean Street, we'll say from the bottom of the page up where that triangle happens, there's a stop sign and there's a telephone pole directly in your driver's blind spot on
the passenger side. >> Okay. >> Um it is a brutal intersection. Um which Yeah. And the and the people coming southwester have right away and no stop. So, the burden is all on people coming
from Dean and the people coming out of that driveway are going to be >> I don't know how you come out of the end of the driveway to a stop sign. There's no >> I don't see that turn >> existing at all. That's okay. >> There's obviously you haven't been out >> like right at that triangle there's a
stop sign. So, I don't think you can even make a turn to that stop sign with the current layout. >> Okay. I will uh take a closer look at that as we move forward. >> Yeah. My only other comment that I got written down is uh the fire department had looked at the original plan. They
have not looked at this plan. So obviously any changes have to go back in front of the fire department >> for turning radiuses and all that fun stuff. >> We're going to need a turning radius plan and everything. >> Understood. >> If I could add another comment too on >> just comparing between this and the
previous plan. Obviously the complete loss of any commercial area up front >> sort of seems like a negative to me and just in my mind but also on the previous plan if the triplexes out back were just changed to duplexes the whole plan would
be conforming. The commercial area would be up front and in would be fine. The cluster development out back would be fine. It would all be >> allowed potentially. We we understood that it didn't meet the cluster bylaw requirements because the lot size was less than 20 acres which is why we went
back to um to this and not just the cluster bylaw. >> Was that because you tried to do it with multifamilies which weren't allowed anyways >> cuz it's a different requirement for duplexes and single families. >> It's still an issue cuz it's 15 acres for a duplex. Sorry, it's 15 acres for a
duplex and you're a couple acres short of that. Right. So, >> we're 13, >> unfortunately. >> Okay. >> Doesn't work. >> Yeah. >> But yeah, I mean this >> it needs a lot of work. >> Um
I mean I don't see that driveway configuration working. So that front building can't be there probably. >> And from there it just it's all going to have to be >> they've got they've got their homework.
I think they know they're they've got our feedback, I think, of what they're looking for. I don't know if Eric, Bridget, any other comments. >> Um, >> you is September enough time, do you think? >> Could we go to your second meeting of September? >> Sure. Paul, do you know when I don't have it in front of me. Do you know what
the second meeting is? >> The 23rd. >> 23rd. >> Ken, you have a question? >> Yeah. Who should um take a look at that the dangerousness of that intersection for the traffic? Would the police
department >> who would be the supervising department that would make that >> an issue? A security safety issue. >> It it's really us. And then if we if it's something substantial like this, a
lot of times we do get peer reviewed um for engineering and etc. So that would definitely come up in a peer reviewview comment >> because I can personally vouch for it. I I'm a Dean Street resident. That is a disaster waiting to happen. >> I was just there about an hour ago.
>> I live around the corner off of South Worester down the road. >> Home that way. Scary, but you got to go left. >> I almost got hit there this morning. Yep. >> Um so I believe September 23rd is our second meeting. >> Okay. So the uh unless any other members
of the public in person or remote have any comments. You see at least one member of the public online or two. No hands raised. >> Lauren and Peter are the only ones here in public. They're not jumping out of their seats.
Um no public comment. the uh chair would entertain a motion to continue SP16 to one for one Dean Street to September 23rd. >> Can I just point out >> Yeah, Rob. Sure. >> Real quick, if I'm counting four days cuz I look like Here's today. It's a two
weeks goes to there, right? Two weeks to there. >> We have a two week break in August. >> What do we Is that what I'm missing? Is there a three week? >> Yeah, there's a three week in August. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. I was just sure. Yeah, >> probably because of Labor Day week >> and we had some uh vacation things I
think in August that we worked around. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Did we Did we get a motion or did we not >> do not have a motion yet? >> Motion to go ahead, Rob. >> Just so Yeah. >> Motion to continue SP16 to September
23rd. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mr. Griffin. All in favor? >> I I opposed. >> Great. Thank you. >> See you in September. Please encourage your applicant to work diligently with town staff.
>> I will. Thank you. >> We'll jump back to our minutes that Brian has ever so digitally almost caught us up with. Um, first set of minutes I'd be looking to approve would be January 7th, 2025. Any comments,
revisions, or a motion? >> Motion to approve. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Do we have any? Those are from January,
right? Do we have abstensions? >> I do. >> Yeah. So, we're going to have Ken and >> Oh, >> that's all right. You can still make the motion, I believe. >> Yeah, he can still make the motion. We'll have Bridget and So, there'll be you two all of these. Um, >> all of them.
>> Correct. You can make the motion. You just have to abstain. >> Okay. because you weren't on the board yet. Second set would be January 21st, 2025. >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Eric's the second. All in favor?
>> I >> I to abstain. >> Can I just make a comment for anybody on the Zoom meeting? Please mute your microphone if you're not speaking. We can hear you breathing. I think it's John.
>> I didn't even hear it. >> Next set looks like February 10th, 2025. >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> That's four. Yes. To abstain.
>> Yep. >> Is it four or is somebody not voting? Sorry. Five. >> Thank you. I didn't catch it on the last one. >> My math. I was told there's no math tonight. >> You're the chair. >> Still, I was told there was no math
tonight. >> There isn't. That was >> February 23rd, 2025. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second. All in favor? >> I abstain.
Hi. >> That's five to two. >> Robin Eric again. >> That's why you're there, Mr. Vice Chair. >> March 11th, 2025. >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion. We have a second. We have a second. All in favor? >> I >> I
>> opposed. Abstain. >> I. >> That was a long one. >> It was March 25th, 2025. Motion to approve. >> We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> abstain.
>> I. >> Five to two. >> That's all of them that we have, I believe, Brian. Right. That were caught up with what you sent us. >> Yeah, I think I got six. >> Yep, that was six if my math was correct.
>> Yes, that is six. >> Beautiful. You don't have to check it till tomorrow, though. Next thing on discussion will be our zoning bylaw recotification. We're going to talk about sections 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 to start, 9.0. Paul, do you
want to pull those up and kick us off? >> Sure. >> Yeah, we will point out who do we we have a couple people on Zoom and we have Mr. Seagull here in person and Mr. Wiggins for our full room of zoning bylaw recotification talk tonight.
>> Right. So, this is the third um in a series of of meetings that you're having. So, I would like to, you know, go over these changes that have um that we've made throughout this process and then including some changes that we've
made recently and including some changes um that the zoning board of appeals had a few changes and then the building commissioner had some changes in there. And afterwards, I when we're done with this, I think it'd be important to go over the meeting schedule. Um the town
meeting um schedule is out. Uh the town meeting is October 20th. And so I've built back um the the important time frames for us to when you transmit or transmit it on the town warrant and then later the deadline by which you have to
make your recommendation to town meeting. Um oh it would help if I just pulled that up. I don't know why I didn't before. Anyway, um so we're going to just go through this and um for the
audience's uh knowledge, I'll what I'm going to focus on or where you see strike through and underline that indicates where there's been a change u if it's if you don't see a change that means it was taken from the existing bylaw and put
into this location. So um we're going to tonight we're going to focus on the general regs and then the special regulation. So, this is really the meat and potatoes of the work you all do. And I hope as I've had to look over this now about 10 times, I really see this as a
real tightening up of, you know, in many cases, some are going to be addition additional things that were in many cases the state told us to do, but in a lot of this it was really a clarification of of your processes. It's it's going to make the the the whole
process clearer for everybody involved. what has to be done. So, um I I really do think there's a lot of positive aspects of this. So, I'm just going to scroll until I start to see changes. And right away we have the parking uh table
6.1, the table of residential off- streetet parking requirements. And this one I remember when we when Mark Babroski was working with us, the the our consultant, we've essentially consolidated that the table below into this. It it there's
still the parking ranges are largely what they were before. Um but you can see those where it's residential, single family, you can do two parking spaces, not not fewer than two parking spaces per dwelling unit. And then multif family, you can see that um there are
different parking ratios depending on how many units you have. >> And Paul, before you go any further, Orin, when you want to speak about something, jump right up. And same for on the Zoom meeting, if as we're going, if you have a comment, please raise your hand and I'll try to see you and we'll
go to you so we don't get too past what anyone wants to make a comment about. Thank you. And same for the board. Just like last meeting, if we have something we want to go into in-depth discussion about tonight, let's do it. If there's something we want to discuss and then
mark and we can look at it further down the line and think about it more, um just like last meeting, that's what we'll do. >> So, um section 6.1 uh10. Um I presented this to the uh ZVA, the zoning board of appeals last week. um
because they were identified as the authority here to or you know the the permit authority um if there was a proposal that exceeded uh 500 square ft for a driveway. So this is saying no more than two driveway shall be allowed on any street frontage unless the
frontage exceeds 500 ft and in which case they'd have to go to the ZBA for approval. They thought this would be more appropriate here back with the planning board because often times this is going to be you're going to see this as a site plan. So why not keep all the
decision making with the planning board? So they felt that that was um you know that you all were the more appropriate authority. And then you'll see the changes that we made here. We deleted that provision of uh you may
authorize a smaller distance between driveways but not you deleted that section of not to be less than 100 ft uh to any driveway. Um right below it um this is a change uh
Steve came by uh my office and we uh he had some proposed changes and I I had we worked on this and so the goal here we thought we could simplify this. This is the driveway widths uh for commercial and industrial um driveways and we have
it as separate separate standards. We thought well really why is that different? I mean you that both can entertain large trucks. Um and what we just thought was keep them have the standards the same offer ranges where
what you can see like with uh two-way a two-way driveway in industrial it just says 50 ft. Well, why not give a range up to 50 ft? That way you don't have to grant a waiver if it's below 50. You know, this might encourage smaller driveways which will have u less storm
water impact. So, we just proposed that the one-way um driveway for commercial and industrial would be a range of 12 ft to 24 ft. That's for the one way and then two two-way would be 24 to 50 ft. >> Is that's a question there, Paul?
>> Yeah. Um and maybe this is just something um if we need to check with highway, what is the recommendation for roadways to be like a standard roadway width? Cuz I know a lot of private ways
start as a driveway and want to be accepted. So >> I think legally it can't you can't go under 11 and 1/2 ft, right? >> Yeah. I I think our subdivision regs are 24 ft minimum. 22 or 24 for a
two-way for a two-way street. So, I think we're within that. And this is the driveway. >> Yeah. >> I mean, the only thing we really changed was we went from 11 ft to 12 feet as the minimum. And then >> yeah, >> I just don't assume assuming that it was
correct before is not what I want to do. Just in terms of making sure that the driveway widths that we're putting in here match up in terms of if a something is starting as a common driveway on the path to >> a potentially accepted street that it
actually makes sense and they can build it once rather than >> Right. >> Yeah. Well, but that would still give you the authority as the board to h say that. >> You know, there might be circumstances where the minimums would be acceptable.
>> So, but you do have I think this gives you a little bit more flexibility. >> And Alan, you have >> a um two things. One, the language itself, >> Orin, sorry, could you just state your name?
>> I'm sorry. Orin Seagull, 28 Cing Road. >> Thank you, sir. >> The language itself says, "Drive widths shall fall within the following limits." That doesn't prescribe anything. So, someone can come to you and say, "I want to do 24 ft." Um,
it's not something that you're able to prescribe. It's it's it's it's a variable. So, you have to come up with some reasons as to why you want to give them something less than that. I'm particularly concerned with the industrial ways. Um they could come up and say, "Okay, right now these trucks are going to be X. It's an industrial
use. You can expect I think the the life of that site could would necessarily require it to have it that at 50 ft as opposed to starting at 24 and all of a sudden they decided they're going to change that." Whether there's a difference for commercial or not, I
leave that open. But I think this language because some of these are as of right there may be a site plan review but I don't know that you're who's who's going to control as long as it's within that range. So if I come up with a plan that's within that range how are you
going to deny me because it's within a allowable range unless you can come up with some specifics as to why I can't do that. So I I think two things. One the language itself is not prescriptive in terms of what you have to have. It's unless you want to say the board can do
something but I I don't know that all of those >> that is what this is saying. I mean this is under their responsibilities but it's an obligation. >> Now is that is that a permitted use? Are they coming under a permitted use? Is this a site plan review or is this a special permit? I think Paul, if you
scroll back down, I think what Orin is saying is that by putting it as a range, the prior language had a for a two-way industrial driveway just had a requirement and it doesn't the new language would have it would not have that
would would force the board to justify pushing people to that upper limit of 50. Could we just >> rather than like comma determined by the planning board? >> Well, you could always wave it and you can reduce it. There's a language in there says you can reduce something, but
I think you're better off prescribing this is what you want and they've got to justify why they why they don't need it. And then I think you have the right in here. I think you can adjust it. I thought I saw something. You have the right to adjust it. >> Uh but certainly giving having them come in with it with with that range is kind
of dangerous. Yeah, >> I would leave it prescriptive and with your right if they come up with a real legitimate reason because you want to save space, you want to to reduce it, but don't give them that range to go begin with. And also, I prescribe industrial use. I prescribe it at the at
the amounts that you have there at least to 50. >> Paul or Steve, is this a before or after Babski? >> After after just wondering. Yeah. >> Yeah. But again, you have under number four, you have the ability to,
you know, to provide, you know, waiverss to this, >> right? >> I I I >> just go this this is still >> the new language does give a smaller floor, >> right, >> or an industrial driveway? Uh, in theory,
would somebody who's driving heavy trucks probably go on the higher end anyway? Yes. But then we get into we're getting into a lot of turning radius questions probably
if somebody wants to go skinny and not pave >> right. >> Mhm. >> But that would be that you you face that anyway in some circumstances. So we're just we just thought giving a bit of flexibility and reducing
>> some pavement can be beneficial. But but that's you're you you reserve that option. You giving it to them upfront gives you the the duty to determine why you're not getting you're not allowing it the shorter distance. If they prescribe it as they have to do it, they
have to come and justify it to you. And whether you give a waiver or not, it's is yours because this could come in as as a permitted use. It's not a special permit. And if it's not a special permit, then your site plan review and then you got language that said they've got a range. They're in that r. They're qualifying. These are qualifiers. It's
your setback as a qual qualifier. All those are what they need to qualify for. If they're looking for a waiver or something or variance, they can go for that. But I think you want you don't want to give them that kind of range. >> Thanks. Currently now we're at for 2-way. Are we
at 22 feet >> to 30? Is that >> 22 to 30 >> is what our current bylaw is. Correct. So it would be from the difference between 24 to 30 is what our like sort of requirement is right now
right like a >> right um if somebody could put >> one way for commercial right now is 11 ft to um 20 u to 20
under commercial. So, >> I mean, I got I got no issue myself adjusting the language to require the industrial to maintain a 50 foot driveway. I It's not that crucial to me. I was just >> Yeah, we just trying to see what we could do to reduce storm water.
>> Yeah. I mean, we I don't mind providing the range and then just like again saying if if we determine that it needs the full 50 foot width, it's under our determination. That's >> I feel like we see it almost every plan. They kind of request what they want to
design anyway. It's >> Yeah. And if they if you felt that the width was too low, this still gives you a chance to they you still have, as we will see later on, when it comes to conditions and your standards for approval, you know, the the ingress and
egress is one of the things you have as a as one of your decision-making points. But and I'm not going to fall on my sword for this one, but I just thought, you know, Steve had a good idea and I agree with it. I I think these standards I I think some 50 ft is a lot and I
think as we're as this as we're see anyway, I'm not going to go into my storm water spiel, but you know, just trying to provide them with more flexibility. But still, you all can if it's a special permit, then even if it's a site plan, if you feel
like there's a concern there, You have you have the ability. It's the board's pleasure. Do you want to do a straw pull? Who feels what? Or uh I'll take the opinion on the board. The only argument I can make for the
bigger one is you will get the tractor trailers that want to make a longer sweeping turn and have a little bit more room um to get into their lane quicker. That's the only thing I can think about for having the wider
two-way. >> Yeah. >> Other than that, I really don't have a strong opinion either way. >> I would, speaking for myself, I think I'd lean toward keeping it more prescriptive. If we want to add language like the
board can reduce these upon determination, it's determination for the site in the use or something like that. Um, oh, it's already in it's already in
point 4. So, you can ignore that last point. But I think I would I guess I would leave it alone. leave it to where where it was before. If somebody wants to push for short smaller, great. But
>> and if someone came and say, "Hey, this is a reason why there's no way we can make this turn." I don't >> Yeah. I think we'd be >> I'm not opposed to being flexible, but when you have it
I think Orin makes a good point in that we have to justify rather than they have to justify. If we have a lower if the floor is lower, we have to tell them why we want it bigger and they could not like it. I suppose the other part of
just and I don't whatever my lesson here on this part uh was just making it so commercial and industrial properties were just built out in the same manner. So if there was a change of zoning or use >> Yeah. >> I think they're serving different uses though >> because if you build out the commercial
driveway and then change the use there to an industrial use instead of a commercial use now you have to redo the driveway over to a different standard. it >> if it's been permitted use. >> Yeah, they'd have to both be permitted uses in both zones, I guess. >> But there's a lot of overlap in uses
between the >> the commercial and industrial zoning districts. >> It's fine. Whatever. It's not not the big one that I need to argue. >> And and we have a lot more to cover. >> Yep. >> Steve's big one to argue is coming up. >> So, we do you want to just keep this the way it is?
>> My vote would be keep it. >> It's fine with my keep it. >> Keep it. >> Keep Sorry, Steve. >> No, I I got others. We'll come back for a spring meeting. >> And speaking of which, here's another
one. This is another Steve. Steve, do you want to describe this one where the transit stops? >> Stops. >> Yeah. I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory, I guess. I suppose any development with a lot of people there, we might want the ability to impose them building like a build out for a bus
stop or a transit stop if like it's along the Gatra line or we see transit in the future and and actually um when the ZBA approved the 40B, the Norton Links 40B, >> we asked for
>> they you got a school bus shelter in there. >> Yeah. So >> even though there's no gatra that would stop there currently, correct? >> No. But >> go bus that goes by 140 all of Norton that I use a lot.
>> Right. And I think there's a school bus stop they use it for. >> So school bus. Yeah. >> All the language says may. So it's not it's like we may >> I think >> switch may to shall. >> Yeah. Uh, I mean, I don't mind it being
May. I I think I I liked that aspect because >> Oh, you want you like it? >> Oh, I thought it was more vague. >> It says shell up there. >> Yeah. >> Is it vague on purpose? >> This may include >> This may include the location. >> Oh, god. >> May include the location. >> Accommodate transit use. >> This may include the location.
>> The accommodation might include various things. >> Yes. >> Yeah, it may. >> Yeah. We're not requiring them to add it when it makes sense. I think we've talked about it with some developments. I forget which one I'm thinking of in my
head, but we talked about like where's kids from this development? Where are they going to meet the school bus? >> I mean, I'm I'm personally in favor of making it more mandatory. If like that's the thing we need to do if like they need to provide these amenities to this
the transit area. the change made the show. >> But that I mean that's >> is it >> I mean I kind of like the idea of just putting it in their head and then us asking for it. >> That's fine with me. >> I mean like I said it does say they shall accommodate but they have to
figure out the way to accommodate. >> Think about it. >> Yeah. I don't know if it's one of those pieces that we could ask to like have the ability for it like a um like an actual like sheltered stop or
something like that. Like can is there a space to put it? Yes. Is it on the plan as potential? Yes. >> Yeah. >> Does it need to be built? I don't know. I mean >> that was my take on it. if there's any adjustments that anybody else has. But
>> no, I think we keep it may be required and if we think it's required, then we make it required. >> I think your shall up here gives it to you. >> Yep. Yeah. >> You have a shall here and a may there. >> Yeah. Shall accommodate and then we can see how it
>> Yeah. This may include anything. Yeah. Okay. Quick poll for the board. Everyone okay with this? Yes. No. >> That's okay. >> Yes. I'm fine. >> Sure. >> Or go ahead. >> Um I'm still a believer of not changing anything. But if you're changing it, I
had raised this once before. >> Changing anything? >> Just I mean the less you change is is the better off you're going to be is my philosophy. >> Well, we're far past that. I I no not necessarily. But anyway, if you're adding something, >> we're going to do it. We're not going to be able to come back and do this again. It's not going to happen.
>> The question I raised is I don't see anywhere describing or giving prescription as to what a loading zone has to be. It's sort of if there's nothing, it's just you have to have a loading zone and I've never seen it. I don't know if the towns have something describing what a loading zone is or
prescribing how it has to be. So, if this is to Warren's point, if this is a new term we're using, should we put it a definition of loading zone? >> I suppose. I mean, I I I kind of use the wording off of Massachusetts recommendations for passenger loading
areas, but I just use their term. So, again, a passenger loading zone, I assume, is just a a area that's marked out for loading. >> This simply says loading zone. Do you want to make it a passenger loading?
I don't I have no problem defining it further. >> I think we should >> That's what he means by that though. >> You're thinking loading zones like loading a truck zone is what you're saying to avoid. >> Yeah, good. >> Sorry about that.
>> How about if we just said pedestrian loading zone? >> There you go. >> Yeah. Passenger, pedestrian, something like that. >> Yeah, but there is no truck loading zone definition or or qualifications or requirements. Uh, so I'm I'm not sure how that's been dealt with in other towns. I've never seen it in our bylaws.
I never scratched my head with it. And just to just so you know that the numbering, you got to change your number to >> I just did. Okay. >> Yeah, I just noticed that. Sorry. >> Yeah, >> this is going to be >> I certainly I certainly wouldn't be opposed to having a spot on the road where Amazon trucks cannot take up the
entire lane. >> No, they're just allowed to by right now. >> UPS started it. they they can just stop wherever they want and it doesn't matter and no one will say anything to them. >> That's on the next page. >> Um so um just moving on here, one of the
changes that you'll see throughout this again is under that concept of the planning board has now will have more ability to grant essentially waiverss but they're actually special permits, different modifications. You'll see this throughout a lot of the changes here. Whereas it was silent, the code was
silent before and you didn't have the ability in certain areas uh pre uh currently or previously to do it. So this I think is a is a positive change. It's it sets out more clarification over what your authority is. Next we go to signs. Uh there were a
couple of changes in here. Um one was proposed by the building commissioner. Uh we have another one from the historic district commission. Um this was a change on political signs that I remember Mr. Broski made. >> That was a free speech thing from
Broski. >> Yeah. So removed the 10 days. Um uh the ne this section 6.2.14 there's a couple of changes in this. U one is we're just changing to add
village center core um to the to village commercial and commercial. Um Ed, our our building commissioner recommends that we make a connection if when we're talking about a sign in the village center that it refers to section 9.6.6
which is signs in the village center but that's under a different section. So he wanted to see that and uh just today I uh just received where did it go? Um,
where did it go? Um, should have been here. Um, >> is it at the end? No. >> Uh, let me make sure cuz there's a change that >> Okay. I I Okay. Something happened with
the copies, but um I'm just going to I can tell you what it is. Um, so the chair of the historic district commission asked that when it comes to signs to acknowledge that they have sign guidelines.
And I drafted up bless you. Um, I drafted up language to uh to state that if you're within the in the historic district, refer to their signage guidelines. Um,
>> do they have written guidelines or is it >> okay? >> Yes. >> It says here political signs may only be placed only on private property. Doesn't that kind of kill that whole which I think would be great discussion of signs on in the center like on the signs on
the common and all. I think we should just get out of that business. >> Where are you looking at? >> I'm reading what number we at five. Political signs may be placed only on private property. >> Can you go back up, Paul, after you're
done? Sorry. >> I don't want to go too far on this because it kind of drifts into a topic. It's not for this board. >> Yep. >> I don't want coming to this board is >> okay. >> Which >> right here, number five.
>> There it is. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm fine with it saying that. I think that >> has that impact. >> I don't think I don't think political signs are allowed on >> we don't that's going to continual select board discussion topic. So we can
uh leave that one alone. >> Yeah. >> No, that's the thing. I don't want to inherit the discussion topic. I'm just saying we have a rule right here. It's only on private property. >> Do do we want it in our guidelines that we as a town reserve the right to infringe on free speech?
>> No. I I would think we wouldn't. >> No, but I'm just trying to think. >> Leave it as is. >> Yes. >> I think that's nothing new, though. >> There were a couple changes with non-conforming signs that Mark had >> campaign and stuff. You have to get permission >> regarding prior lawful non-conforming
signs. >> I just put one in the town. >> Um >> I mean, you can >> Are there any changes to the electronic message >> area or is that somewhere else? Um, it's in here, but there were no proposed changes to it. But I think
after what we saw earlier today, I'd be an advocate for, you know, if a sign is under a certain size, like 16 square feet, building permit or a site plan, but a special permit seems excessive to me.
It's >> item six down here. Digital electronic. >> Yeah. Oh, moving on with lights. >> Again, this is, >> you know, 14 >> another change that um again, if you you
have the authority to grant variations to it, but it'll again be a special permit. landscaping. Um couple of changes um Ed had brought up.
Um but it's not it was Oh, that's in performance standards. Never mind. Again, we have the special permits for modifications. >> Performance standards. This is a new section. Uh I think this is a really important one. um you all were
essentially doing this but now this codifies the how you go about approving a project right so this this provides all the different standards the applicability to it what's exempt and so now all of a sudden when we when we get
a proposal down the road and you're looking at lighting these are the standards that you would look at right again I we didn't change anything from when Mark went over this, but many of these are new.
But again, I think this is where we start to really see things tighten up, but also be just a lot clearer because now when you're making decisions on site plans and special permits, you can look at this and go um and you know, this is what you need to do. And it's on us too
now to put this once you know if this is adopted we get this out to applicants really need to focus on this um so lighting now noise the thing I want to say here is this is these this is new information but what we're proposing is the states
standard but this was the this was u I've flagged this and again Rob thanks for re-reviewing the um the comments made at town meeting, but Mr. Kolaniano made a point about this um this
standard. Uh but you know, we were um you know, we're just simply proposing to follow what the state's requirement is and enforcement is it a noise can be a big challenge. >> So now the if this passed, the building inspector would be able to act on it,
not the >> the board of health. >> Board of Health, sorry. EPA is now who you'd have to go to. the state EPA >> for the state. Yeah, the EPA for the state. What? >> D. Yeah, it's their regulation. >> Can I um
>> Yeah, >> I know we have the decibel levels in here, Paul. We don't have the states rules on pure tones. That's part of the same bylaw. >> Test my >> Can we just put a note to include that? If we're going to copy the state, we
should copy the whole state. Greg and for those who haven't gone through way too many discussions about what sound about decibb the pure tone is the idea of like like that high-pitched wine that's a
consistent like frequency that yeah so the state has rules about restricting it. So basically it can't be above 10 dB in air ambient and can't break whatever limit they set for that at the same time.
>> I'll I'll I'll get that language in here. I do or I I just want to mention too what's important about the noise is and you all have been doing this for years but now it's codifying you can regulate this through hours of operation. We've laid out the requirements.
Um, you know, this I think helps your ability to, you know, modify a project. Um, you know, while you know, the the standards for noise are in the state law, at least now you have the, you
know, a clearer ability to say that hours of operation things have to shut down or that the noise really has to you can't be, you know, pounding away on, you know, some manufacturing openired. Um, and we can make you not do
that. So I think this is a a a much better protection than what we currently have. >> Mr. Chair or >> thank you. Uh Tim, the thing you were referring to, was that what was called monkey noise or something when we're doing the the solar stuff where it
couldn't be heard by adults but children were going crazy over it? >> I don't think it was the state regs talks about it as puritones. >> Is that what that was? It's a little bit of that as well, but um >> because we did run into that with the
solar farm and and it was a real problem for some of those abutters. >> Yeah. And the the abut butter on Clap Street spoke about it for at length. I know. Um whether that was pure tones or something else. Um obviously not a good situation, but I
just wanted to make sure that we're going to just cover both of them. One thing that that that I'd like the board to consider under hours of operation, you have loading and unloading. >> What about including deliveries deliveries into and out of an operation?
And I'm not as concerned if they're operating on on uh East Main Street, but if they're operating so they're they have to go through residential areas, that kind of restriction would really help a lot uh in terms of making sure they understand that if they're going if
they can't do their work, it's just not their butter. It's the deliveries. And if they're located in an area that goes to a residential area, it's devastating. It really is. And it's been a major problem that we've I think we've sort of resolved somewhat with the with some cooperation. But uh having something in
here to limit that in those cases, especially where they're driving through residential areas, should be something that the board should consider. >> Yeah, it's interesting. I kind of feel like it's covered in part A. >> Can you restrict FedEx and uh
>> Yeah. Well, we can't. They're >> people like that. >> They they're not under a permit so they're just driving. But I mean I think >> right this is >> I wonder if it's covered in point A there loading unloading of boxes, crates, containers. I mean that would be every delivery I've ever seen.
>> Well, that doesn't you can you can send trucks out and you can receive trucks or come in. They don't have to unload, but they're coming in early. What happens is the truck drivers, okay, like to come in early to avoid the traffic and they come in at 5:00 in the morning, 3, whatever, just they'll drop their truck off and
they'll just get there. Uh, and so again, if it's a commercial street that they're on and they're using commercial roads, I have no problem with it. But if they're going through residential areas, rest being able to restrict them should be something that the board ought to look to protect those residential uh
residents. Well, I think this gives you that without saying, >> you know, for commercial >> roads, this is the standard in residential. So, I think I mean I I get this is it is an important point, but >> we also want to make sure we don't write
it in such a way that, >> you know, maybe legitimate reasons where, you know, a delivery is coming in at 8 9:00 at night and it's in an area that's perfectly fine to have it. Um,
part of this too is we can direct well it's hours of operation but also you know the route you know trucks can take to get to a site >> which we've used before and this codifies that even more.
But I I mean I do agree that >> we do cover a lot sorry Paul we do cover a lot of this in our special permits now anyway in our hours of operation. And I I'm struggling to think of another way to add more language into it. If anyone has an idea or if you wanted to write
>> I think the suggestion would be just to add delivery in that comma list at the point start of point A >> the delivery loading unloading opening closing >> comma delivery. >> Yeah. But how do you stop a delivery from arriving not during hours of
operation? Like >> like again like I understand like their own trucks but that's their hours of operation. >> So that would already be there but like >> just any delivery might just be again like an Amazon truck or something or FedEx.
>> Yeah. But that wouldn't be a delivery they have any control over, >> right? So why I don't know how we'd restrict that. >> Yeah. I don't know. I mean, it's certainly implied in here. I mean, >> it is. >> I was thinking >> I think it's already covered in my mind,
but >> I do too. >> I agree with you, Arm, but I think it's covered. I I'm struggling to >> Yeah. >> with adding anything helps or not. >> Do you think just adding delivery? >> Yeah, I was just looking at add just add deliveries. Um,
>> Paul, you want to just put a note and we'll >> add delivery. >> Put a note on it. We'll talk about it again. Yeah. And we did we did talk about it with Cumberland Farms specifically and we wrote it into the conditions >> for Cumberland Farms >> for gas delivery
>> for everything delivery. I think one of the members at the time was very was focused on that bread trucks are always at like 4:30 in the morning. >> Yeah, there's a lot of lot of deliveries go on all night for lots of businesses. >> So I'll look at the Cumberland Farms decision and see. Cumberland Farms was
specifically easier to do that because they own all their trucks, so they can tell the trucks when to show up in theory. >> Um, not always the case for other >> applicants, >> right? >> Thank you.
>> Cisco wars. >> Okay. Site development and operations. So, this gets into things like land disturbances, uh, replication, which of course, uh, if you're, you know, reveating property, uh, clearing, you know, for utilities,
and then cocaine. >> What? >> Just stay. >> Yeah. Or, do you want do you want to share? >> I'm I'm sorry. No, no, I'm sorry. I I just had a question. I was looking at this design criteria. Um, we have a we we used to have a a section of
landscaping and it said you had a landscape you're parking by so with so many trees. I does this overcome that because this is this has nothing for sight screening or or >> No, it's in that's in another section. >> So, but okay. So, this is so that's not part of your site design or is that
something else? >> Well, remember these are the performance standards >> under site design. So, >> right. But there's another section on on um >> landscape you maybe want to reference that that that it that it's >> you know those standards shall apply as
well or something. It just it looks like it was absence of that and I don't know whether the two are conflicting or not. >> Um >> there's nothing in here saying screening or any other plantings that that I know are required under the landscape ordinance. >> The se the section that contains the
landscape. Is there other stuff in there? >> Yeah. >> What is that whole section? Oh, how many what you have to in parking lots, how how how you have to landscape parking areas, how you have to landscape. >> I think it's >> more it's more touching on the performance standard as a whole and
saying that please make sure that you're also referring to this other section. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Not so much just landscaping, just the whole thing. That's the the thought process there. Mhm. >> It's kind of
>> So you have >> okay archaeology and historical resources you know it's giving you the ability to uh you know address that through whether it's the historical commission or historic mass
historical commission preservation of existing vegetation. Um this is just saying it's a priority to try to preserve the existing vegetation which again has been a practice but this just helps codify that uh reveation
uh limits of land clearing finish grade. So these are things that >> did they have reveation twice? >> Um >> replication >> replication that's different. >> Okay. my brain went those sound like the same
thing and they were close but never mind. >> Yeah. So you can see these topics here um the different standards even phasing of development now um storm water.
Uh you also now have pedestrian and vehicular access, traffic management standards. It it includes all the standards for accessing the site for driveways. see the difference. >> Curb cuts >> and I'm waiting for Orin. Orin, are you
on one of these points? >> Six. >> Six. >> Yeah, we're not there yet. >> Okay. So, again, these are all of the uh ways in which we get around. So, interior circulation, transport. Um, a big thing I think a big change here now
is we're going to uh require a transportation plan which we we tend to but now we will and and identify the standards that have to be done and if you don't feel it's satisfactory and this is something that a traffic peer
reviewer would have to also review against I think this is good. It's been a practice, but now it's it's a >> I would be in the plan. >> And then level of service. So, this was something Mark talked to us about. >> Paul, can we go back up to five there
for a second? Just in terms of the requirements for a traffic study. >> So, this is for performance standards for any project. >> Well, it's well, it's approval by the special permit granting authority. So, I
think this is largely under as a special permit, >> but I >> I was just thinking for like there are projects where we do not need to see a traffic study. >> Sure. >> Well, I you have the ability to not require it. >> Yeah. Um >> Right. Like the the electronic message
center. >> Exactly. That would be >> right. >> Completely irrelevant, >> right? >> Um but we're just just asking for an additional waiver on this. >> You could. Yes. >> Okay. and then level of service. So um again
this was something Mark understood more from you know he understands from case law but if the proposed project results in an intersection level of service below level of service D the applicant may be required to provide detailed plans with a cost estimate to mitigate
any proposed impacts and and here's the important thing if the proposed project will result in a reduction in level of service of one letter grade you know going from say D to E or an increase of 10 seconds of delay to a signalized or unsalized intersection. The applicant may be
required to um provide those plans with a cost estimate that when implemented would result in returning. >> Can you >> improving the level of service? So this is essentially saying this would you know be a opportunity for the town to
get mitigation for a project that triggered a traffic impact. Can you show the existing on the is that >> how big is the existing? Okay, just there. So the existing is >> don't bring it below C or make it worse.
>> Okay. >> But I don't think that's consistent with state law. >> I think that was Mark's point. >> Yeah. But it it does speak to some of the situations where we've had where we say, "Well, it's already enough. It can't get any worse."
This does give us a number to say if it gets worse worse. >> 123 and 140. >> That's enough. >> Fix it. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So that's the >> problem I have with this language is it all it does is require them to give you
a detailed plan and cost. Doesn't require them to do anything. It doesn't allow you to require them to do anything. It just basically says you got to give us a plan and cost. Whereas the other one says if you go below those you have you you can't go below those. It doesn't say that you have the rights to
do something if it does you can't you can't require that mitigation under this. It just says they have to provide it and it doesn't this is all these are supposed to be the design criteria you have and so you have these criteria but it doesn't give you doesn't say that if
it below goes below F you can you can't have it or you you have to mitigate you have to provide mitigation which is reasonable. So, it's missing something is what I'm saying. >> To your your point, Orin, is it you're saying that the the current language
says they have to have a plan, but doesn't say they have to pay for the plan. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Is that the That's probably not the intent, Paul. um in terms of
um >> I mean it comes back to you whether you accept that plan as being reasonable but you you know if they give you a plan you you have to be you you have the right to make them do that you can say we don't like that plan because it's not doesn't mitigate enough but certainly if they're
proposing a mit they're saying this plan will mitigate the problem this is the cost you can say >> have fun with it go do it >> it's missing Sorry, but this is what you have to do to fix it if you want to. >> Right. Yeah, we can I can check with Mark to see if there's a legal issue here, but
>> yeah, if it's Yeah, I think we've had applicants who have provided mitigation as part of the project, >> right? >> For for smaller or greater degrees, but this is asking them to provide the plan, not necessarily to implement it or pay
for it to be implemented. So that's the nuance there, >> right? >> Um >> right. So >> I'll check with him on that and if the answer is we can then it would be you know um writing language that would
require it and then figure out the schedule of when a project would be built, you know, like >> yes, >> you know, upon certificate of occupancy or something like that. But I have that flagged. So, >> I've successfully been able to
paraphrase you so far, Orurin. >> Um, then we have dangerous intersections, um, where you have the ability to mitigate for any net increase in traffic volumes that have a high accident history or and then site distances. Um
Ed had a comment here concern um that about um about um sight lines and what I did was I just took this from the existing bylaw and it didn't make it into this version but I think this would
be a good place for it which is no fence wall pedge burm you could see the other things or landscaping features that obstruct visibility within uh that obstructs visibility shall exceed 36 inches in height with hold on let me
try this again sorry it's getting late no fence wall blah blah blah or or structural feature that obstructs visibility shall exceed 36 in in height within any required front yard setback or within 20 ft of the edge of payment of or street right ofway whichever is
more restrictive. This limitation shall apply to areas within the sight triangle of any driveway, curb, cut, or intersection as measured from the point of vehicular egress. He wanted to make sure he gets a he and previous building commissioners get
requests to put building fences right up in the front property line, which can of course create all sorts of problems for people trying to turn out of it. He's trying to make sure that we still have a way of not allowing that so that cars can safely pull up to an intersection
and not have an obstructed view. But that can also be vegetation that's above 3 ft in height. So when you're in your car, even if you're in a a sedan, you're 3 ft, you can you can should be able to see over it. But if it's, you know, I
think about the shopping center I pull out of every day that I have to take a left that's on a big curve, heavy vegetation. Um, this can help with any projects that come in front of the board to minimize u
placement of potential obstructions. >> Does this mean like I couldn't put an arbor vite in my front yard next to my driveway? If it is screening a site, it um you can put it in your front yard, but it would
have to be within It wouldn't be within the front yard setback. >> Well, yeah, but if my house is at the front was at the setback, I have no other front yard space. >> Like, if I build my house at the 25 foot
mark back, then the entire front yard I can't put bushes in or nothing. Um the challenge is is when those bushes grow and and screen. >> My driveway is 20 ft long. >> Yeah. No, I know. And you're >> I can't put a bush at the end the back
end of the driveway. >> It seems restrictive. I don't like >> Yeah, >> I I get the the idea of protecting an intersection, but this seems >> This is the existing language, Paul. >> This was pulled from the existing. Yep. I know in one of the drafts Verrowski
had proposed something and we couldn't figure out how to attack it so we deleted it. >> Right. >> This was actually a shorter statement than the older. I've got an older and a newer. >> Yeah. Um, I think we just have to
somehow change the within the front yard setback to within the sight triangle or within the I I can't put my head around the wording. I don't I think to Steve's point, the front yard setback is too restrictive.
>> Um, >> well, okay. So, >> I can't What if we do this? >> We need a traffic engineer to >> have a question. Would you set the sight triangle of what? Of vision down the street or >> that's the Yeah,
>> correct. Yeah. So, when you're pulling out to the edge of your driveway or the edge of a street or the edge of a common driveway, anything, you don't want a tree right on the corner. You don't want a sign right on the corner. You have to be able to see >> a certain amount. Was it 200 feet? You
have to see clearly. >> Who sets the triangle? Who sets those? >> There's a national transportation. Yeah, it depends on the speed. >> Depends on several different factors. >> There's a number of different standards in it. Speed's a factor. The um angle of the streets a factor.
>> Can we like make this not apply to to residences like single family homes? >> But then if you have a single family home or duplex or anything, >> Union and Southwester was a single family home. I mean I I can just imagine
like if you drive down the street you're going to come after house after house after house that is going to be breaking this code. >> Correct. But applicable this is falling remember this is falling under site plan and special permits >> right when we look at this entire
section you know performance standards I I I you know I want to go back to the top and um >> I mean I I got tomatoes in my front yard that would break this rule. >> Yeah, >> that was a big tomato plant.
>> Seriously? >> Oh wow. I >> 36 in three feet tall. That's tall. That is not >> um performance standards. So the following performance standards shall have been adopted in order to control the size, scale, and impacts of non-residential and multif family developments that require a special
permanent site plan review. So Steve, I think that gets to your point that an existing neighborhood would not >> Yeah, I think your tomato plan's okay. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, I I >> it's not going to apply to single family, >> right? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. The point's valid. >> Yeah. >> And to the building commission's point, if he wants it to apply to be able to use this as something to talk with existing residents, then it needs to be somewhere else, too.
>> Yeah. Um, so do you want me to I've edited out that >> I don't I don't mind that wording right there, >> right here. Or Yeah, I don't know if there's another section of the bylaw outside of the
zoning bylaw that we might be able to put it, but um I will make that comment, too. Yeah, I forget where we had it when we talked about it with Babrowski. Um
but he had some language and we tried it and we're like, I can't wrap my head around this. >> Yeah. Well, part of it was it wanted to be like a 30 foot wide triangle space on a 50 foot lot. Like that's already the whole lot. >> Yeah.
>> Again, we're talking more commercial and >> Yeah. You're right. >> Right. Yeah. And this would be for anything with a special permit and site plan. >> Yeah. >> I'm I'm more okay with that as long as it's not just for general allowed by right single family. >> Right. >> Agreed.
>> And we have been adding a a condition um to ensure you know vegetation is cleared within the site triangle. So um we've been doing that in the last year. Um so we've also included some more
things regarding you know parking uh and um you know pedestrian and mobility maximum parking uh mitigation. Oh okay here we go. Maybe this gets to the point about mitigation. The planning
board may require as a condition of any special permit off-site improvements to mitigate the impact of proposed development. Such improvements include intersection widening and traffic signals or components of uh the traffic u management. Um this might get to the point Orin was
bringing up, but let me flag this. >> Yeah, it's just it's almost the connection isn't there. >> Copy that and put it right under where we were talking. >> Could >> Yeah, but it might not always be a traffic mitigation. It could be
something else, too. >> Yeah, you you could do what they call traffic management. Um, you know, >> big, you know, cities will do things like car pooling and things like that and nowadays we do remote anyway. >> Um, we have we put standards in here for
sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle safety. Uh we've really ramped up on that location of parking areas getting a little bit more into design to give you more ability to say put the parking to
the side or behind the buildings. Again, these are things you've already been doing. It's codifying that traffic calming, uh, wastewater treatment and disposal. Um, you would just be working with, uh, the board of health and, uh, water and
sewer. So fiscal in uh fiscal analysis standards was added. You have the ability to ask them to produce you know the revenues and costs associated with
development and this was something Mark had included. And then you have the ability to grant the waiverss. >> I'm thinking back. Was it uh where do we have a big fiscal analysis >> MBTA >> question? Was it MBTA or No, of a
specific project. >> Oh, >> was it Yale or something? I forget. We definitely had we definitely talked about it because it was anything in especially in that back half of blue star where it changed dramatically from the initial proposal at town meeting
>> and we had no no teeth to have them do any type of study or no way to >> have them do any type of study. >> Yeah. And again, you might you would have the I think you would have the ability to not require it, but it's probably after, you know, pro it's
certainly a new tool in the toolbox to ask for it. >> Yeah. >> And you know, sometimes your decisions are going to be based on do you think this is a positive or negative fiscal impact. Well, now you have the chance to
tell them we want this reviewed. So, now we're into the special regulations which um were scattered throughout. Orin, do you have a question on special regs or previous?
>> No, it's special. >> Okay. Earth materials. Um uh right up front I remember Mark said this provision about uh deleting that the operation for earth removal not
decrease the value of adjacent property. >> Um but you'll see later on when we talk about your special permit requirements that considering impacts to the neighborhood is you know within your realm. >> So this is just covered somewhere else. Oh,
>> it's a it was something that Mark highlighted as not in line with case law. >> Yeah, >> I if I recall, excuse me, Mark was really talking about this valuation. Um, and I think this is one of the things that was pointed out by the by the
audience at at the town meeting. That was the one thing they found as a change. They weren't sure why it was being changed. I was just suggested, would it still work as said that the operations will not adversely affect the adjacent property? I know he was he was concerned with putting value because he said you couldn't really deal with the
value >> that was from our existing language. Uh it says this >> it said I know that but and then we were and we we we took it out and that was what was concerning people. I think the whole issue for me with earth movement is not so much what you're going to do to your property but how it's going to
affect me if I'm a neighbor. And so I understand I think Mark was talking about the value. you can't use value as that criteria because it's gets really kind of scary as opposed to it adversely affecting the adjacent property. I think that's what would be normally we'd look
at. Uh and that's what this is describing the scope of which is supposed the purpose of this this section is to do and that's what I'd suggest looking to adversely affect the property because I think when you're looking at earth movement that's what I would be concerned about and I think this what that's what the board would
want to look at how it's going to affect somebody else. Paul, >> you were saying it was covered in the the permit conditions. Is that in this section or those go back to the core conditions? >> Going to go back to we we'll we'll it's a different section. Uh but let me just
flag that. >> Yeah, because I think one of the existing conditions is like impact on adjacent properties. So, it's it's in the higher section, the core conditions that we're supposed to look at, but it doesn't
hurt to restate it, I guess. >> Yeah. >> All right, let me just flag that >> affecting it to the subjective arguments coming in. So, nothing changed here. >> Probably not a way we can word this to protect ourselves from those either, is
there? >> Uh, there were just some changes here about the public hearings, but we still have to meet the requirements of it. Adult entertainment. Um, so one thing I just want to mention about this, um, when I, so the way this is written, it's
the ZBA that's the permit authority here. They just felt it was more appropriate for you all since this is essentially a commercial type of development and not what they do. Um, so that was a change you'll see here that they think it should be the planning
board. Um, I also want to point out to the public, one of the things that we did change, it's a substantive change, but our attorney told us we should do this was currently our bylaw says that we can't have an adult use located within a,000
ft from an exist or uh from all other zoning districts uh as well as within 1,000 ft of another adult entertainment establishment. But because when we studied it, we realized only one property was eligible. He felt
that there was a a freedom of speech violation here. So we we changed it to 500 ft. But I mean, how Steve, you ran the numbers. There's not many more properties that >> it leaves probably like a dozen or so
eligible properties in the industrial zone >> along Commerce Way. Commerce Way as a road will now fall in the district, which it wouldn't have before. >> And they're all for the most part built. >> They're already built out. >> Right. And uh right, Commerce Way, it
wouldn't be something like Hill Street because you're immediately against residential, which we would not not allow. So it it added a few more properties, but if it's Commerce Way, there are that it's already built out. And it doesn't means one of them
couldn't be, you know, you know, redeveloped or or but >> he just felt that we were in a position we could be sued uh because of overly strict zoning on that. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir.
>> Paul, just a question. The zoning the ZBA felt that it was more appropriate for the planning board and it's just for what is the permit being granted? Is it >> it's a special permit, >> but is it just for
is it determining the use and knowing where it's cited or is it going back to performance standards and things like that? >> All of it. cuz I'm just thinking in terms of like is it closer to a variance or is it closer to a special like what >> it absolutely closer to a special permit
because currently we allow the use but we have no sight we have no sight uh sighting requirements for it. Mark has added those sighting requirements. So this is if we ever get a proposal in the future you would be reviewing it against
you know these provisions to ensure that it's done correctly. So it's it's a lot. It's not a variance. I mean, unless they had to go in, you know, >> it's not like we're determining whether it qualifies as an adult use. >> No, they will tell you that.
>> Well, I would hope so. >> And then that you need to determine. >> Yes. >> Is this use within 500 ft? Is it doing You'll see other standards in here. >> That's I was more just going to the question about whether it's CBA or planning board, right? in terms of
>> what it's closer to since we haven't seen one of these. >> But if thank goodness >> if this weren't an an adult entertainment district, these are the things you look at there. Other than 40Bs, the ZBA does not look at that. >> Okay?
>> In some other communities, they do, but not here. So, you'll see that they have these different requirements for signs for off- streetet parking. And again, you have the ability to uh uh well, there here, you know, here are all
the submittal requirements that would have to come in, which we don't have any of this currently. >> We can't just put down that it has to be over the town line in some other town, right? >> I think that would void. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> This is bigger. Jim's a nod. He's liking that idea. >> Yeah. Properties in this bylaw shall be located in Mansfield, Ta. >> Why do we even want allow budding towns? Because they might be near our town line at least away.
>> Um, so again, there these are all new standards that are not here. Um, you know, we've been fortunate. We haven't had one cited here because it would have been really hard to condition it without these. So um you know if we do get one
but anyway um the next on this is wireless communication facilities towers and so forth. Um there were no changes. >> Can you let's see um in the section on wireless that talks about fall um
dimensions. I know there's a section that says basically says like you have to clear it has to be so far from the property line that if it falls all the way over at its full height. Yeah, this one. Um,
can you flag that for Tim to propose potential alternate? >> Um, >> what's the >> So, the challenge that we saw >> what's the site Tim? Sorry.
>> Um, yeah, I know it's in that 2 right there. >> Um, >> you're thinking by by itself restand >> 7 to what? This one right here. >> This one. Okay. Ah. >> Um, so when we dealt with one of these, I forget where it is. Um,
>> Washington. >> Thank you. the way that it was def that the structure that the facility was defined. It said that everything in this project is the facility
and then but they had like a shed with the tower and the way that if you read it as in everything is in the wireless communication facility and anything in the facility needs to have a setback equal to the height of the structure. So
we it was for forcing you to imagine that the shed would get up and jump 200 feet to fall or something like that because it was making you calculate the height of the tower but include it for the shed
which we just waved it for them but it didn't make sense to >> Could a shed do that? >> Not unless it's the Wizard of Oz the hotel. I think that's pretty good. I forget. But there was some that but that was something where we looked at it and went this makes no sense. We're just
going to wave it right now because it makes zero sense. And they had the setback for the tower. But yeah. >> Okay. >> I've said I'm going to review it like three times and I never get around to it. So I'm Please keep me honest. >> For an osprey nest on the top of each
one. >> We don't need endangered species and the D to come in. Oh, no. If you're helping the aspirates, they'll be >> We're not touching this, right? >> Um large scale ground mounted u solar facilities for building.
>> Uh I just u want to identify something here which was um this was a comment Mr. Klano made at town meeting. Um, of course this has been an issue for regarding that uh one on the cranberry
box, but concern about battery systems and that um, you know, does this does, you know, does this provision mean battery storage facilities? you know, we've always contended it did. And then as we found at the last meeting
that when we were looking up the definition of energy or solar energy facility and there's the site um back to the U Mass General Law, their definition does include storage energy. It said
energy storage and we're citing that in the definition. So I think we're just being consistent with how we've interpreted this. There's a lot more push for battery storage and energy storage, not even with solar development, the battery by itself, >> right?
>> But there there's one around and I guess it's a business what they do is they buy the electricity and store it. >> Correct. And then they sell it back at a higher rate or higher demand time, >> right? >> Correct. >> But this is Enron all over again. >> Think about that. >> It's Enron all over again. >> Yeah.
>> There's a bunch of small uh venture companies dealing with right now. >> But these are accessory. It's considered an accessory. Um >> accessory to solar. >> Yes. Yes. >> So that's saying we're not allowing battery by itself
>> in this case. Uh it it it's considered an accessory. >> Gotcha. Structure. >> Do we need to provide a special regulation for uh standalone energy storage systems? >> It's a newer
>> right new concept. thing >> if somebody >> could be like a hydroelect electric dam or anything like I don't know what >> I don't the company just putting big containers of batteries and tying it into the grid basically >> right >> I don't think it's appropriate for recodification
>> that's fine yeah keep going >> certainly want to work with a lot of stakeholders on that >> if somebody wants to propose something in town meeting under a separate article go for it >> tough to speak to it's new and the stuff I've read so far I you know I don't know
how legend it all is. Some of the cons to having them, like when the batteries catch fire, that can get pretty ugly, which I I'll agree that probably can't. >> A lot of the new ones are fully submerged in water. >> Yeah. >> So, they can't
doing that for cleaning. >> So, now we're in a new section, which is special residential regulations. So, we're getting there. First section in here is our affordable housing section which is article 19. So there were a
couple changes here. Uh of course you see their definitions but as you know we moved all the definitions to the definition section. Um but a significant change was um the deletion of one of the criteria to trigger
a being eligible for this um is if you're dividing land if you're dividing land by six or into six or more lots. I know I remember Mark saying there was case law why >> he said it was he said it was flatout illegal. >> Okay. So um
>> or flat illegal now, >> right? But yeah, >> but so we're just saying you're only applicable if you're u constructing six or more multif family units um and taking away this provision. And you'll see a few more sections where
we've said, you know, talking about the lots in the division of land. Um, and then I've realized, um, when we get down to the density bonus area that
we needed to change something there because when we get to density bonuses, it says that the density bonus is eligible in R80, R60, and R40 and village, commercial, and commercial. But R80 and R60 do not allow multif
family. So if we're doing away with the six lots, R80 and R60 shouldn't be involved because if it's only multif family development, R60 and R80 don't allow it. So I just propose that we take out the references to R60 and R80 in the
density bonus. >> If it's redundant and doesn't apply, I would agree. Yeah, I have a problem with that. >> Well, yeah, it it's not applicable. And >> does it does it need to be added to the mixeduse district?
>> Like do we need to put in that? >> Do you need the MBTA in there is what he's saying? >> Oh, and um we did not. Well, no, because that has its own >> um our that bylaw said the affordable
housing was uh specific to that district and this was specifically excluded from it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um Yeah. So that's specifically uh outside of this. So and that had a different
threshold of 10 units too. >> Okay. So, residential clusters. I don't remember seeing anything in here that's changed. Um, should also point out to people one
section did get proposed for deletion, which is house numbers. You all never see them. Um, this is something that typically is dealt with by the fire department. Mark also added, um, >> you scroll back up. Yep. >> I didn't house numbers need to be more
than 3 in. Not less than three inches in height. >> Yeah, I guess mine are that big, I guess. >> Huh. >> Minor floor. >> Happen to know that. >> So, we've also um allow for well, we
called it current we call it currently housing for the elderly. We've made changes to that and broaden this whole section on senior housing facilities. Mark has put in um a purpose statement. We've got definitions, but again they're in the definition section. You see
applicability, dimensional requirements. Um you can go through it all. >> Don't go too far. Did you want to speak on this? >> I was going to say so this is senior housing facility specific to the definition of senior housing facility
itself. Correct. and all the different uses that fall under it, the different terms. But unlike our current code, now there are sighting requirements that um any any u senior housing will have to meet.
>> The the problem is the definition of senior housing facility includes senior housing under it. So basically this bylaw would affect senior housing and there's provisions here that don't apply to senior housing such as aid
transportation services public safety. Those are things that that have nothing to do with 55 and over communities. So I think you we used to I thought we were going to be separating it out. We've listed it in the use table as being uh senior facilities and senior housing,
but under the definition you have in 11, you throw it under senior housing facility and don't make it separate. So either I think you need to separate it out or if you want to have some other criteria for it, exclude some of the provisions that would not apply to senior housing.
Yeah, we we brought this up before a couple times and I I mentioned before that the senior housing is a 55 and year old and up community. That's it. >> But right now it it's part of the definition. >> The way it's being written, it's additionally including senior housing
facilities also. So a senior housing community could also develop into a nursing home or something also. That's how it's being written into here where either one of those components could apply. We already cover senior housing
facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, infirmaries, etc. under hospitals, nursing homes, infirmaries. We didn't need to add senior housing facility to the use next to senior housing. We just needed to include a good definition for
senior housing facility and include it with the nursing homes, hospitals and >> no to the contrary. Right now your definition says senior housing is a part of senior housing facility. So basically 8.3 applies to 55 and over communities
which it doesn't. So it it either is needs either you need to exclude those things that don't apply to senior housing an 8.3 because it says in your definition under senior housing the definition of a senior housing facility see 8.3 and then under senior housing
facility it includes of the number of things that are included is senior housing 55 and over. >> So I I I again I I've seen it since it was first brought in like a year ago or whatever. I I've noticed this sort of conflict between what it is that I mean
I I thought both uses are already covered without changing our table to combine senior housing and senior housing facility created a confusion of some sort. >> They're different.
>> Yeah, they're different things. And I mean they're not necessarily incompatible, but they are two different things. >> Did we change something when we just went over this in the use table? I'ming we had this conversation. I just can't remember what we did >> in the uses table. Currently, it says
senior housing. >> And then the next line is hospitals, nursing homes, whatever. And that would include what we're defining as a senior housing facility, medical care. >> Mhm. >> We didn't need to change anything. >> But we added in the medical the senior
medical care stuff into the category that's supposed to be just senior housing only. So, we got to go back to the use table is what you're saying right now. >> In my mind, to fix this, I would put senior housing facility into the category with nursing home stuff or just
like that's where it belongs. It's a nursing home. It's a that's it's a medical care facility. That's the category goes into. >> So, you're saying separate them? >> Yeah. Like the senior housing facility, which is Yeah. >> And you need to separate it in the definitions as well. >> Yeah.
Otherwise, again, they're just we're making some way that a nursing home or senior housing can go together and incorporate each other. >> So, is that a determination we need to separate those? >> That would be mine
>> and it's obviously Orin's big concern. He's mentioned it several times. >> Did we just talk about I'm trying I'm still going back to our last meeting and we talked about it. Did we make a change? We didn't make a change last meeting. I don't >> we talked about it and didn't do anything. >> I don't think we did anything then
maybe. >> No, we did not. I don't think >> but this change in definition I guess would bump up like RMV would become eligible to just be a senior housing facility now. It could be a nursing home the whole thing, >> right? I think previously you had two different categories. One was senior
housing and one was hospitals nursing homes. What we did is now you still in your in your schedule you have senior housing and senior housing facilities as two separate items in the schedule but you don't but you treat them as the same within your definitions is the problem.
So you identify them as two different things in the in in the use schedule but we haven't separated them out for definition. You've included senior housing under senior housing facility in your definition. >> Paul, can you make a highlight here that we have to go back and check all three
areas? Um, >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, putting that aside, the intention, Paul, is for this section to cover what we would consider like a nursing
home. Correct. >> Right. And medical. >> Yeah. So, it's more like a hospital. A hospital only for seniors. >> A nursing home. >> Yeah, fair enough.
>> Excuse me. >> I'll make the note or it's got >> I think we had >> I think we've known that these are linked. >> Yeah. >> And we need to make sure that we're looking at them appropriately. Yeah. But it's just a good >> I kind of remember talking about it and us going past it or saying we have to
talk about it again and not >> Yeah, I had it on our list of to revisit from last meeting. >> Is it? >> Yeah. Senior housing. >> So you want to revisit this next meeting? >> Yeah, we already have it flagged. >> Meeting after too. We'll also talk about it again. >> Yeah.
>> You declare one Christmas holiday weekend too. >> Okay. >> I wrote >> so Okay. Okay. So, senior housing, we'll go back take a look at that and see how we can
differentiate between 55 and over and memory care and things like that. Um, accessory dwelling units. Again, this was this was a requirement of the state um passed earlier this year. >> So, we are um I actually had a
preliminary approval from the attorney general's office on this language, though. Um our building commissioner and the water and sewer superintendent have asked, can we require separate uh utility connections? I've asked the
attorney from the AG's office, but I haven't heard back from her. >> I don't think so. Yeah, I just want to yeah make sure um because we can't put any regulation requirements that exceed uh any state, you know, building or fire
code requirements as they want to see ADUs built. So >> they still if you have a septic system designed for a fourbedroom, you can't add an ADU that adds another bedroom. They would have to upgrade their septic. >> Correct. So,
nothing else has changed on this, but I will let you know once I hear from the AG's office about the um >> yeah, >> not what what's recommended language that we can encourage separation of water and sewer lines.
So, next >> especially for detached ADUs. Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. If it's it's Yeah. So, special and overlay districts. So now we've taken a number of our overlay districts and have put them
under one section. So floodplane overlay district is the first one here. Um a couple couple changes in here. Um just want to point out there was um
uh this was um this was the omission that Mr. Klaniano had had identified um that was approved two years ago um at town meeting this section 9.1.10
um he had pointed out it wasn't in our not on the current version online um I had asked the clerk to talk to uh ecode to fix it. I don't even know if they still have, but my mistake was not giving this language to Mark to include
it in the version that went to town meeting. Um, that's on me, but it's here. This was the language that was approved a couple years ago. Uh, if the town acquires data that changes the base flood elevations in the FEMA map, special flood areas, flood hazard areas,
the town will within six months notify FEMA of the changes by submitting the technical or scientific data that supports the changes. Uh, so that's there. Um, you can see >> before we scroll, Paul, can you scroll
back up? Um, is it worth putting language to like because we're putting a specific address there. What if their lease runs out? Um,
this was good question. I mean, this is >> Yeah, he's right. >> Um, can we just put >> which is currently located at >> Yeah. >> Can we just put the office and then we can make that information available
elsewhere? Yeah, >> we say I mean >> at least runs out. We have to do it by >> or just put a parenthesis. I mean if we need to put their addresses. >> Yeah. >> Then >> I >> I don't know why we couldn't just I
>> say who they are. They can find out where it is else. >> Yeah. Just keep the first >> some special information you want to share or >> someone just like or just parentheses or replacement address mailing address provided by FEMA or something. >> No, but if they move to a new office, we
don't want to be changing our bylaw. >> Exactly. Yeah. Or >> I mean what we could just strike the the address >> if we don't need the address then we then why >> we're saying FEMA region one risk assessment say who they are and leave it at that. >> Right. So, we could just delete that
>> and then um >> unless it's a requirement of the whatever D FEMA stuff that you need to include their addresses and what you're doing, but >> all right, let me I'm going to check that. Um
>> there we go. That's my good point for today. I'm done. >> Ask a Norton neighbors. Where's FEMA? >> It may not be around. I get posted to ask questions like that. >> Okay, I'll I'm flagging it.
>> Yeah, but Causeway Street's changing a lot. >> Yeah, probably not going to have any championships along it anytime soon. >> Don't rub it in. >> What are they doing up there? >> Fan. I don't want to see that. Um,
>> more addresses. Water Resource Protection District. >> Rolled right past it. >> Yeah. >> Can you go back up? Yeah. >> Do you want to strike those also? >> Here they are again. >> That's a different title for the same address. >> The other one said risk assessor.
>> FEMA's full name we used to build. >> Oh, never mind. It's just >> I think that's the tip O'Neal. >> That's their government name. >> That's Yeah. So, this just basically means you can't build a dam and route the water onto your neighbor's property.
>> Yeah, it's water resource protection overlay district. >> Yeah. >> Uh I wasn't alive. Um I don't think >> this is one where you you have uh the ability if if there are district
boundary disputes if they provide scientific data you can change the boundary here. Um there was just I don't think there was anything else in here.
wetland protection overlay district. This one we did add the language the to mirror the water resource protection district regarding the district boundary dispute. So the the burden of proof is on the owner to demonstrate that uh where the
boundary should be for the wetlands and that was the only change we did there. marijuana overlay district. Um, one of the changes was just to identify that if there's a split zone parcel,
um, if marijuana is not allowed in that split zone, you can't do it. You can't put the, uh, marijuana facility on that portion of the property, which is consistent with what how we treat other uses. I don't think we changed anything else
here. >> It's amazing. We have like six pages and then half of it is look at all the states rules. >> Yeah, we did add that the marijuana establishment shall not create a nuisance to a butters in the surrounding
area. >> We're currently full, aren't we? Or do we have >> uh I'm trying to get that clarified. There is another company looking and I'm waiting to see. Do we have a third license? >> I don't know. >> I thought we had three cuz
>> Lucky has two, right? >> Yeah, but one's a delivery license. >> I thought we only had >> It's two retail. >> How do we get rid of the ratio? >> It's a state law. >> It's 10% of your liquor licenses. Damn. Let's >> We may have 11 establishments would
which would kick us up to >> I thought we were set but maybe not. >> Yeah. I'm I'm trying to clarify. >> We only have 11. >> Well, liquor stores. I'm sorry. Liquor stores. >> Yeah. >> And then um
>> this feels like more >> within this section too is where we moved the design in village commercial and village center core. So you'll remember in village commercial we've essentially changed it from guide uh
design guidelines to design standards. So we replaced a lot of shoods with shells and then we added property frontage requirements that came right from the village center core and applied it to uh village commercial. Same with pedestrian
walkways. So we've we've really ramped up uh you know design standards in uh village commercial VCC. I don't think we touched anything here. Ah, MOOD. We did not touch this.
>> What is this again? you. >> Yes, >> this is our MBTA community zoning, which by the way, um the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities gave us the thumbs up. So, we're just waiting on >> AG
>> the AG's office. >> Just scroll past it. >> I'm having >> Yeah, I don't >> You're not going fast enough. >> We don't need to see this. I'm catching words. >> And okay, so that was it for the coverage of the
sections. Um I I do want to just go through a couple other things. Um as I mentioned, this was reviewed by the ZBA and uh we've covered most of it. Um I just want to go over a couple more
things that they made changes to or or not. I will say ultimately they they really like the changes. Um for them it works. It's better organized. Uh they like the fact that we are now breaking out non-conforming uses from structures
which right now it's currently blended all together. Uh they also like the fact that their uh you know their roles and responsibilities are more clearly separated from planning board and and requirements for approval of variances.
just like here with special permits has um you know is much clearer. Um, so first thing, >> can I make a comment just in general? >> Um, when we get to town meeting, can we
is the zoning board of appeals cuz know when we vote on an article, are they voting on this article amongst themselves and should they be speaking at town meeting and saying how they voted?
>> Well, I we didn't leave it that they would vote on it. Um I it I don't think there's a reason they couldn't. Um they they do want to get they they're reviewing a section. I'll go over, but we can certainly ask them to to vote for it. Uh if they'd like to
>> before town meeting to give a positive recommendation. >> My recommendation would be nice. >> And I'd like them to stand up at town meeting and say so. Preferably >> have a spokesperson do it. >> I'll say I'll take either or both. >> Mhm. if they love it so much. Then uh tell
>> if anyone's ever not seen any ZBA meetings. I was on the ZBA for a couple years and the chairman Tom Noel, how how long has he been on? >> I don't even know. >> 25 years. >> 25 years he's been chairman. He's a lawyer. He's absolutely fantastic. So >> yeah, he's he's he's great. He's
terrific. >> Um so Split Lots, nothing major here. They just had some wording changes. Uh but they're the authority if there's split zoning. um this that they would be issuing a special permit for that.
Um >> and I cover that on Wednesday evening, right Paul? >> Yes, sir. Um so this was a this next change is a you know kind of a substantive one. So currently if if you have an alteration
of a non-conforming single family or two family residential we allow you to make to extend up to 25% of that nonconformity. Typically these are small houses on small lots. Mark had
suggested go up to 100%. The ZBA felt that number was too big and based on you know Tom's 25 years of experience he's never seen anything that big. He said the biggest he's seen is about 50. So they recommended bringing that number down to 50%. So really the change is
going from 25 to 50%. >> I don't know if anyone knows the number, but most of the lots in this town, a vast majority are non-conforming. Yeah. >> To do any building permit, you have to go see the BPA, ZBA. Um and they see
Paul or Brian, you think this is 60 70% of what they see? It's over 50. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I want to add a deck. Oops. >> You're over the setback. >> I did one meeting where I made seven motions to approve these at one after. >> Yeah. Very common.
>> Um, if you add a second floor, that's over 50%. Right. That's doubling your square footage. >> No more than 50%. No more than 50%. >> That would be 100%. >> Right. So, that's what I mean. Like >> it wouldn't it wouldn't allow you to put on a a full floor. Correct. Right. Yeah.
But it's >> they've never seen that >> that nobody's had a non-conforming single family home and wanted to put on a second floor. >> Uh that's what they were indicating >> to be honest. When I think of it that
way, 100% is even too restrictive cuz if you had a single family home and could you allowed by right to build three stories, you're increasing your square footage 300%. 200%
increase, but you're increasing it 300%. >> Like it's it's a 300% total. >> Like Yeah. I know. You know what I mean? But 50% even sounds small when I think of it that way. >> Either way, it's an expansion of the existing. >> Yeah. I mean, it's it's them granting
it, but if I was if I'm thinking about it, 25% felt strict. 100 is still only one story. People aren't doing it though. >> Yeah. Typically what they see are additional rooms added. I mean that's
right. I mean Allan, you were on it. Brian, you've been with them. >> I'm trying to think of any time where we saw a second floor. Would they be able to grant a variance from this though? And >> uh it's it's I think it's a special permit. Um
>> they would have a process to approve it if they wanted to. >> That's what I was going to say. It was 25 before, >> right? >> I'm trying to think of a time where something was granted. >> I mean, we get a lot of these
>> and they've been more We've got We've gotten them more than 25%. No. >> Well, they have to go to the board if they're over 25. >> Correct. >> Right. If it's under 25, it it's the building commissioner. >> So, what what this does is it moves the
line for it doesn't have to go to ZPA. >> Correct. Right. >> So, they could still build it >> with a ZBA. >> Right. >> Well, I'm actually starting to wonder maybe the term gross floor area might be the wrong term. We should be looking at like >> the the footprint of the house. I know
there's a better term, but like it sounds like a lot of the what we want to hit is like if they're building a porch, that's adding square footage to the house. So, why don't we worry change the square footage and then we can you can build your threetory house. Won't change. You mean like foundation size,
>> right? >> Yeah, >> you could do some weird things in the same footprint probably. >> I don't know. >> We could go by foundation size. >> Yeah. >> I mean,
the ZBA is the one ruling on this, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They're the ones that you you won't see this. >> It's ZBA that sees it. It just seems like one of those things where like >> not saying they can't do it, it's just saying they have to get >> No, but my my neighbor next to me if
their house is conforming as a single f floor, they can they don't even have to go to the zoning board to build two more floors, >> but I would >> but it's might be existing non-conforming not for whatever other reason. >> Lot size setback. If you have an existing setback that's too close, if
you have existing square foot is right, they don't. >> Okay. >> But yeah, there Brian found one with a duplex where they added a second floor. But again, this is just saying that if you are increasing by no more than 50%,
the building commissioner can >> just grant it. If it's above it, >> they'll see less is what what this is doing. >> Okay. No, >> I'm just pro less restrictive, but that's fine. >> This is less. >> This is less restrictive. So, >> it's still less. Yeah,
>> it's fine. >> So, um there's that. And then, um they're going to get back to us on something. Again, it's really in their wheelhouse, but um section 5.6 um is if you're if you're a non-conforming use and you're and you're
a vacant site for 2 years, you lose that nonconformity. But the provision now says but the plan the ZBA could issue a special permit to continue to extend that nonconformity. The concern they have is it they want to
make sure it doesn't conflict with 5.8 which says that >> someone locked out >> 5.8 which says that >> wonder nobody comes to our meetings. it wasn't long >> that um that no non-conforming use shall return
to a non-conforming use if it became conforming. Now I tried to explain to them that those are two different concepts because the one that I you know 5.8 is saying you go from non-conforming to conforming you can't go back to nonconforming
5.6 Six says is you're non-conforming. You're then you are vacant for more than two years. You have the chance to allow them to go back to a non-conforming use. Nowhere does conformity come back into 56. But Tom's looking at it. They'll give us
comments back on that. >> If a store in the village commercial closes and is closed for 2 years, it can become a store again. If it closes and then becomes a house, it can't become a store again. That's what it's saying. like >> nonconformity wise. >> That's >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> But this actually >> can't go backwards. >> Right. >> Right. Right. So, but they understand this better than I do. So, um and then you'll see the provision in here about the historic district that this is again anything uh for non-conforming uses that
would go to the ZBA that any of those that are within the historic district would have to uh apply for a certificate of appropriateness. Tim, to your point, do we want the historic district >> be there too with us since they're >> if you want the ZBA because the ZBA is
adding >> and having their important cuz >> they're >> this is particularly giving responsibilities for the ZBA and laying out their role. So, it's not
I would certainly love to have them say that we listened to them and incorporated their feedback into the recotification, but I think it's a less of a it's not something that like we're saying what they do. We're just saying you better make sure you call
them. >> I was more saying I want them at town meeting also saying they wanted these changes and we're responding to their >> That's fine, too. They're uh they're going to be giving me comments on these changes. Uh uh I told them by the end of the month
we'd be fine. So they're looking at it. Um we've given them all the material. >> Yeah. >> Um so that was ZBA. Uh because we we covered the rest of those that you know we covered others. And then Ed had a couple of
comments that I want to make sure. So, oh, Ed Ed had comment to add recreational vehicle temporary to the use table under residential and in the definitions
because he's starting to see um requests for people to start living in RVs. So, um I'll I'll skip down to the RV uh the definition section, but what we thought was
um create a new category or definition and a use called recreational vehicle temporary, allow it by special permit in the residential districts. Don't allow them anywhere else. and then define them as um
well one thing we did he wanted to do was recreational vehicle was defined but under the flood plane definition said let's move it out move it into the general section of of uh the definitions and so we pulled the definition for
recreational vehicle but then added at the end uh the bottom uh bullet point about excluding mobile homes. So, recreational vehicles are primarily not for use as permanent dwelling, but as temporary living quarters for recreation
cockpit and you can drive them. >> Yeah. And and excluding mobile homes. But then we came up with a definition for recreational vehicle temporary cuz recreational vehicles you can take to campsites and whatnot. and we didn't put that in the use table, but he wanted
to be able to, you know, address people who were wanting to do recreational vehicles temporary. So, it would be an RV used as a habitable space for no more than 30 days pursuant to a special permit granted by the planning board. >> Was he he was he thinking more like someone's working on their house or
their >> could be that um >> while they're having visitors or a combination of both? He didn't really say >> it. It's it's a it's a number of things. I mean, with housing prices getting so high, people are going to start you looking at other ways of of >> finding shelter. >> I'm honestly really cool with it.
>> That's already happening. >> I think didn't we have something in there where it was there was mobile home temporary with the idea being like your house burned down so you put a trailer on the lot. >> That's what's already in our books. >> Does this conflict with that at all? Do we feel
>> No. Mobile and recreational vehicles are in mass law defined differently. They're different and that's why we're distinguishing >> in here that that's that's the case. >> So, one of the things if if if Ed is pitching this kind of thing, could we
also bring up Nuckets's tiny home bylaw >> cuz mobile homes have a size cut off and you can't build smaller than a certain size and the the mobile the tiny homes fit that sort of in between area. They're not recreational vehicles. >> They're on a trailer.
>> They're on a the trailer. or they go on a little foundation. >> So maybe ask them if this could be recommendation vehicle temporary slash tiny house. >> I I mean I >> different category. >> I I would think it' be a different category. It would go similar to a mobile home. It doesn't have to be
temporary, but it could be temporary. >> So is is your ask Steve to ask the building commissioner if he would like to have a regulation specifically defining time and their use. >> Yeah. I mean, it could be used as an ADU. It could be Yeah, there's a lot of
different reasons, but >> ask him for now if he thinks it's needed. If not, we >> If a good bylaw, then, you know, I think they probably pay attention. >> I don't think the Bichc's going to move here though. >> Orin, did you want to chime in?
>> Orin, did you want to chime in on that? >> Yeah, I'm just questioning I don't because it's raised again. We used to have mobile home as temporary. Are you has this board decided to make it permanent in all the residential areas? I think that for me that's a real big issue. I don't think
>> No, no, no, no. Remember it it's by special permit >> and up to 30 days. >> No, it's not. >> Yes, it is. >> Mobile home is not >> Oh, mobile. I'm sorry. Or >> a mobile home. Mobile home. >> It used to be temporary. >> Now you're making it special permit.
>> No, no, you're not talking about what we're talking about here. you're talking >> it's it's in that it's in that use table right above it um I know what you're talking about Orin that's what I was kind of speaking to a little bit is we had it as mobile home temporary and it's
just making sure that in the use table if you go back to Ed's other comment in your search um it was like three row four three rows above it I think yeah it's like row Seven.
>> Seven. >> Wow, that was pretty close. So, we have planning board. It was flagged as temporary in the previous issue note. >> Took that out. >> We did take that out. >> Yeah, we took mobile home temporary out
at some point. >> Okay. >> I would suggest that be stating I and I think one of the other issues we I think was raised and I thought the assessors even mentioned it that mobile homes have a you know, you're talking about assessments. You talk about a a zone 80
and a zone 60 to put in a mobile home where the assessments are going to be I don't even know if they can be assessed as a as a structure and maybe more as a as a vehicle. Uh and that can have a big impact on this town. Um in addition to which I don't think many people living
in a zone 8 with an 80 uh a zone 80 or zone 60 would expect to be living next to a mobile home. uh it's mobile home park which is fine and if it needs to be temporary it could be temporary but to make maybe even extend the temporariness of it granted if there's somebody who's
doing construction or whatever it is but it's certainly not I don't think appropriate to site that in a a major residential area um as a primary residence. I mean I again I feel like a mobile home is
100% considered across the entire country as a pretty standard building for a single family. Like it's >> it is and that's why you create a mobile park because you recognize it and you put them all together and they designated that area and that's in and
that's in an appropriate spot. >> That's sort of like saying any because they're single family homes, we should group them together and just build apartments instead. Well, no, but you you don't allow those parks in those residential areas. >> We don't we don't allow mobile home parks. >> You don't allow any mobile home park
>> anywhere. Anywhere. >> That's that's that's uh what we already that's what we've been doing for years. >> And that's a property with three or more mobile homes. >> I'll say my parents in Florida, they have a large community. They have a they have their single family houses and and
sprinkled in with single family houses or mobile homes that look like single family houses. you can barely tell. So, I don't I don't know. >> Yeah. I mean, they're not they're >> I would I would suggest people living in in zone 80s with fairly large houses and
on two acres zoning would be put back by allowing those that kind of regulation. >> I have a feeling people on R80s would be the most distant from anybody else's property. they would have the least visibility of somebody else living on a mobile home
compared to another neighborhood in town. >> Um, >> going back to what we were just talking about though, we had another line item that said mobile home temporary. Is that what it was? >> We used to >> before this edition or before
>> Yes. We ended up at some point when Mark was here that it got removed, but I don't remember why >> specifically for the intention of allowing a mobile home to be built, not only temporarily. >> This just goes to when we're talking at town meeting. It's not on this list like
we don't show it as it was there before. You know what I'm saying? Or maybe it's on a different draft. >> Motor homes are mentioned here under motor vehicle. show is being deleted. >> That's what I'm getting at. Yeah.
>> Can we just at look for that poll? See if we can see where it was before. And >> it literally just had the word temporary in parenthesis afterwards >> with a different number. Yeah. But how do we >> One of the things we got to we're going to be struggling with is whatever draft we present, we should
have the exact language as it is now. >> Yeah. and not that this being a perfect um example of not being able to show what we deleted or what we're changing. >> Y >> I mean um working from the drafts that
Mark started and >> there's so many I'm sure we have a few that several things that we're not going to ever find, but if we know about it, we're talking about it. I think we have to at least right >> note it now. Even if you just put it underneath, if we add it underneath at some point, you
know, old number seven we struck or we I think we should reference it somehow. >> Well, mobile home temporary. Okay, let me >> see it there. >> Well, just so you know, you're you're not sharing your screen right now. You're just sharing the document.
>> Yeah, I I'm just trying to get back to it. All right, let me uh put this in here just so we got to make it to the end of the meeting. I'll clean this up. Okay. So, we'll add mobile home
temporary back in. Sorry, I it I was working. I'm sure there's a few things that have happened like that, but if we come across it, we just feel like we should, >> right? No, no, absolutely. Absolutely. >> I'll move that under I'll move this up
in a draft to under or the mobile home. >> Would an RV park fall under commercial parking facilities? >> Is there a time limit in the >> That'd be commercial, >> right? So, does it call is it commercial
parking facilities? >> Let's look at commercial facilities and see where it would fall. >> Cuz we don't have anything that says where like again like an RV park or like a vehicle stopover area. >> Keep going. >> Well, well, wouldn't we consider it
recreational? >> N cuz I don't know if passive. I wouldn't call it passive. We have recreational camps. >> Recreational camp is a program. >> Yeah. What What is it?
>> I'm looking I'm looking for commercial uses. Yeah. No, I don't see it anywhere. >> Is definitely don't have it. >> Is the park behind the compliment? Is that >> I don't see it anywhere. >> Parking. >> No, that's what I'm saying. Like would
it fall under commercial parking facility? >> It's an RV. It's >> No, it's not parking. >> Home park. That would >> Okay. So, it has to be an RV. >> It's non-conforming park. >> It doesn't exist. So, >> it just wouldn't exist yet. >> Correct. >> That's my opinion is that an RV
campground does not exist under our proposed zoning code. >> Okay. >> So, like Normandy Farms can't come here. >> Sure. It's sort of sad. I like campgrounds. >> Okay, let me see if there was anything
else. Ed, >> is that homework for you to draft a use table edition? No, not offering. >> Nope. My homework. I've already done it. Done the previous version. I just figured I wouldn't recommend it yet.
Um, okay. We already covered that. The site obstructions RV RV. >> Yeah. >> RV. Oh, he he just also asked to add under
the definition of structure. Um, you could see here that other than fences under 7 ft because uh 7T triggers a building permit. So, but but anything under seven feet, he doesn't have to issue a building
permit. >> So, that mailbox on Northwester has to have a building permit. >> The air mail guy. >> Yeah, that guy. >> Oh, I was trying to figure out which one's from. >> Super hasn't shown the papers or
anything. >> Pre-existing non-conforming. Yeah, >> it's a quiet little joke somebody has going in town. So, um >> I enjoy it. >> Yeah. >> So, we've got some more work to do, but I think it's probably a good time now to
talk about >> Did you >> the town meeting schedule? >> Yeah. And I apologize. I should not have sent you the spreadsheet. um cuz it has more dates than you would care to know about. But um I'll share
this, but a lot of this is the stuff Brian and I need to pay attention to for making sure notices go out correctly. But so um the notice went out last week that the meeting is October 20th. And so the
other important date is August 28th, which is when the warrant articles are due. That's the placeholder language. So, you do have two meetings in August, uh, the 5th and the 26th. So, you could make a recommend, you could go on the
26th and then vote to transmit the placeholder language on the warrant article, right? So, we we've still got a little bit of time and we could still make changes, but then come September, um that's when you're going to have your
public hearings to make the recommendation to town meeting. I still don't know exactly when the last day to post the final language is, but you know, as you know, there's going to be language that goes to select board and finess, usually a few weeks to a month before it
goes out. And I know this board has also talked about a joint meeting. So we're going to if you want just let me know and we can start setting that joint meeting with select board and fin. >> I think it should be as early as possible. >> I would like a joint meeting. >> Yeah, definitely want one. I want it as early as possible though. Early
possible. >> Okay. >> Just in case whatever comes out of it, we want to >> Yeah, we want to be prepared for that. >> Do we I'm thinking timing with new town manager probably. >> Yeah. It'll be their first rodeo with town meeting in Norton.
>> And I did see on the select board agenda that it looks like if I read the agenda correctly that there would be a contract offer. >> Okay, >> never mind. >> It's getting late, but there there is something on Thursday's agenda regarding the town manager. just there there will
be additional voices in when we schedule a joint session and they may need more time with the new town manager for select board. >> Yeah. >> So we >> as early as possible is good but >> they may have a lot of meetings about
town meeting. >> That is true. >> It is what it is. >> Yes. is >> back to what we were talking about though, Paul, look for the initial language. We had talked about a couple of times and mentioned and Orin you kind
of brought this up but didn't. Do we want to call this something different than recodification? >> I know we mentioned it. We talked about it. >> We just right now you all said zoning bylaw >> designing by update. >> Yeah. >> Is that how we want to write it in the >> Yeah. >> warrant. Oh,
>> I like it. It's vague >> with that. >> It's open and vague. >> Recotification. whatever definition of recotification didn't work right. So, >> no, it was too specific. >> Now, we're updating. >> Update is Yeah, >> like we're not even we're recodifying the name. Yes, >> we're recodifying the update. Yes.
>> Updating the recotification. >> Paul, do you have uh how many line items to remind the Sun Chronicles who run the ad do you have in here? Just one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. and it'll be on my calendar as well.
If >> it's not on my calendar, it doesn't exist. >> And we'll make sure Jody gets it. >> Yeah. >> So, Paul, our next meeting is August 5th. What's the agenda looking like and what are we going to be covering for the >> um Well, one of the things we you agreed to was to hear Serpent come back and
talk about their approach to the uh MOOD design standards. So, that's on there. Um we didn't continue anything tonight to the to that. So >> um >> we don't
Oh uh 260 South uh Washington is uh continued to August 5th. >> So we did continue something. Yep. 260 that >> and um >> and we have some recotification update bylaw talk. >> Do we
>> I don't know. I'm asking >> we you could I mean >> again we you know we probably should just to go >> just put it put it on agenda. >> You have some items and I'll flag them again that you wanted to reconsider particularly in the use table. I'll
>> so make that meeting we'll go back over what we want to talk about. >> Yep. >> Yeah. That might be a good time for it. Other than that, if nobody else has anything, >> there's only one other part that I've noticed yet. One last thing.
We didn't have any design standards for the commercial or industrial districts yet. >> Is that something anybody's interested in? >> No. >> Not considering that at all. >> Second. >> Cool. >> Not yet. >> Okay, >> cool.
>> I'll take anyone else's opinion, but I think it that's way too much. Okay. I think I don't know. >> Is that all our agenda for the night? >> The chair is looking for a motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second that. >> We have a Hi, Orin.
>> Motion in a second. All in favor? I >> I All right.