Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, February 3rd meeting of the Norton Planning Board. The public is welcome to participate either remotely or in person. We are in person here at the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street in the Crane Room. You may also join
online via the link as advertised in the agenda. In addition, you can email any questions you have to the board ahead of the meeting to the email address as listed in the agenda. I will call this meeting to order. We have six members in
person and one member Rob Welsh via Zoom tonight. We do not have any planning board business and policies to discuss right away. We are handing down some bills as we speak and we may touch on something about some minutes at the end of the
meeting. I'm going to go slightly out of the order of the agenda. site plan SPR9 and special permit 17 for zero West Main Street. Owner applicant is SRO Development LLC. The applicant is
seeking to construct two apartment buildings in a combined total of 35 units and 65 parking spaces. This application has to be continued to February 24th due to a noticing error. So, the chair would entertain a motion as such.
>> Motion to continue. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. As Rob is on Zoom, we will do a roll call vote. Tim, >> yes. >> Miami, yes. Bridget, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> Frick, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yes. >> Rob,
>> yes. >> That is continued to February 24th. Next item on our agenda is remand for special permit 30 Mansfield A. The owner is Pern Homebuilders LLC. The applicant is Alan Major Associates, Inc. This
applicant seeks to construct two 36 unit apartment buildings. This application was remanded to the planning board by the Bristol County Superior Court and we have been having meetings on this since November 18th. Mr. Jacobe, good evening sir. >> Good evening uh Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. Uh Jack Jacobe, 144 Bank Street representing the applicant. I'm going to give you a brief update tonight and ask >> you go a little closer to the mic. I can't. It's >> Can you hear me now? >> That's better. Yeah. >> Okay, I'll get closer.
>> So, I'll give you a brief update. Um, I'm going to start with uh last Monday the conservation. >> One sec. If you guys want to excuse me, if you guys want to talk, could you go outside? I just It's very >> very echoey. >> Thank you. No problem. I just I can only
concentrate on one thing at a time. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. All right. So, uh, last Monday, the conservation commission, uh, closed their hearing and issued an order of conditions. So, uh, and that order of conditions, um, uh, incorporated the
plans that are before you, which have the parking, uh, in the front. Uh the second thing that I want to tell you about is that last Thursday we had a meeting with the town manager with the
new DPW director and with your planner Paul D. Jeppi and uh we were we discussed the sewer issues at that time and we were asked to convert from a force main to a gravity sewer and we
agreed to do that. So it will be a gravity sewer line. Um it will take a number of months before the design work is completed and uh vetted by uh Weston
and Samson their peer reviewer. Uh but uh that would not affect this board rendering decision. I would suggest that you simply make a condition that we build the sewer in accordance with the uh directions of the town DPW director
andor water and sewer commissioners. However, Paul wants to write your uh condition for you. Uh the most significant thing that happened uh is that on Friday the building
inspector ruled that um member warall is correct and that 61C does apply to this project and uh that um caused us to not be able to file the ANR plan that we had
prepared because we have to make a change. And so Paul, if we could get that up on the the board. So uh you can see lot C and you can see the combined D and E to the right of it.
Uh and what it means for us is two things. One is that we need to add lot A which is uh fronts on Reservoir Street uh to lot C in order to meet the dimensional and density requirements of
the bylaw. As you may remember, uh, your bylaw says that under 61c that even though this is in the village commercial district, any residential use, whether it be by
right or by a special permit, needs to comply with the nearest residential zone, which in this case is C60. So therefore, we need to add that lot in order to get enough uh upland and enough
uh lot coverage percentage to um meet the requirements. So the plan that was almost ready today will be ready for your meeting on February 24th and we will get it filed and we will ask you to
act on that plan at that time. As I said, it will combine D and E and it will combine A and C. Uh then the other change that it required was that the building needed to move slightly because our building
originally was about 13 ft off the lot line and it needs to be 25 ft. So, we're going to we have uh filed with you um a sketch plan showing uh moving the
building 12 ft to the east. And there it is. And so what we need to do now um is to just give you a revised plan set that goes through all of the pages of the plans uh and make sure that we've
reflected that 12 ft on every one of the plans. That 12 ft does not affect our storm water system. Uh does not affect our parking. Um it just simply moves the building 12 feet to the east.
Uh so therefore um we now comply with all of the requirements of the C60 zone and that is the plan we will be asking you to act on at your next meeting. We intend to have
nothing further to present uh on February 24th and we would hope that you would be in a position to close. >> Thank you. The only other thing we had discussed briefly is we're going to need a extension letter from you. >> Yes. And uh I was informed by the
planner that you don't have a particular form that you just need me to send an email. Um and I will do that first thing tomorrow morning. >> Thank you. I believe that's all Mr. Jacobe has for us for tonight. Any questions from the board forum about
>> Yeah, I had something just to clarify. Um, just to make sure, the R60 district is asking once you go beyond single family, it asks for for 80,000 square ft per lot >> and that is for two for three or more,
there's a blank for there, >> but but we're going to exceed the 80 anyway. >> Okay, just just clarifying that part. >> Yeah, we're going to be up closer to 100. Um, in all other aspects of the dimensional chart, this would meet the criteria, the height, the lot coverage,
all. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It meets all of those criteria. >> Rob, any questions? I'll go to you since you're on Zoom. >> No, I'm good. Thanks. >> There's no other questions from the
board. U, Mr. Mr. Jacob, since it is a public hearing, I'll take any questions from the members of the public that are here or online. Mr. Shabet, Jim Shabet, 56 Mansfield. A uh just something quick because it seems like the discussion is going to be the next
meeting anyways. Um, if you need a letter for an extension, I would think you need it now so you can vote on it. I mean, someone asked for an extension, you have to vote whether to grant it or not. I don't see how you can do that in the morning. Just Just saying.
>> We're not asking for it. Um, they're not asking for it. We're asking for it. It's it's something for us. It's for a >> Don't believe it works that way. Robin's on. >> It's It's not a continuence. It's
>> town council's on the Zoom if we want to ask Alan. >> Robin, would you like to chime in? We're getting close to our deadline making a decision on this. I believe our deadline is February 16th. So, we've
asked Mr. Jacobe to file a letter for us. I don't believe we need to vote on it, but uh what's your opinion? So I just I just want to clarify because this is a remand, >> right? >> Correct. >> And so what what deadline are you
talking about? Maybe I'm maybe I'm missing a piece of this. >> Robin, in the this is Paul. In the remand, it did say that we had to render a decision within 90 days from the opening of the public hearing. >> I think it was closed, but let me check. Hold on one second. Let me
um I think it's closed. was what I had in my notes, but give me one second. Let me pull it up here. Just got to find the right document. In any event, I think that um you know,
it's always best to have the writing at the meeting. Certainly, you know, an applicant in the room could just write it up and hand it to you, but I mean, you can vote it and if you need to get it later. Um, you know, obviously there's a risk you don't get a writing
later, but you can certainly vote it in any of that. Uh, let me just pull this up real quick. My understanding and while you look, Robin, is that the letter is just to the timing is to
in essence protect the applicant from us dragging them along forever and to >> move us toward a speedy decision. So, if they're in alignment with it, then that's the party. >> Yeah. So, Carl, let me email this to you
real quick so you have it in front of you. I think you can see your email. um from where you are and then you'll just have it fresh. Hold on one second. All right, I just sent it. But the um >> Robin, in the meantime, we do have a
>> order Oh, go ahead. Sorry. >> We do have a signed letter that Mr. Jacobe just drafted asking >> for an extension to March 31st if needed. >> So, >> okay. I mean that the order says the board shall file its written decision after remand with the town clerk within
45 days after the close of the public hearing on the remand unless there is a showing that more time is required for good cause or the parties mutually agree to extend that time. Oh, 45 days after the close of the public hearing >> since the hearing has not been closed at
this point. That's moot. Okay. >> But >> yeah, I just sent it to you so you have it for the record though if you want to, you know, have it there. >> Yeah. Very good. >> So, this is the version signed by the judge on uh June 12th.
>> But certainly you can there's nothing wrong with um you know the applicant being on board with continuence or the you know the need to continue. >> Very good. We do have a written letter from them and I'll take a vote on it just to cover all our bases. >> Do you need a motion for the vote?
>> Oh, did you get that from me? >> Not yet. Oh, it just came. >> All right. I Okay. Yeah, if you want to just take a look, but that's it. >> Tim, can I just ask Paul, did you want to give any kind of color from your perspective on the meeting with water
and sew or anything else? I think they they captured it, >> but that was a the the uh the DPW director and the town manager were uh requesting that that line be a gravity line. So if no other questions, no other
questions from the audience, the first motion the chair would be looking for is just a vote to extend this till our March 31st. Actually, no, we don't even have to now, right? So forget that.
>> Well, you still want to continue it because you need to continue. >> No, I'm saying we don't have to worry about we don't have to worry about this letter now. So February 24th, Mr. Jacobe is good for you. >> So the chair would entertain a motion. >> Did you say February 25th or 24th
originally? >> February 24th. >> 4th. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. And I do do not see any hands raised in the Zoom. Just to confirm that before we move on the motion if somebody wants to make it. >> So the chair entertain a motion to
continue remand special permit 30 for zero Mansfield Avenue to February 24th. Second. >> So moved. >> So moved. >> We've got a second >> motion by Bridget and a second by Ken. Frank. Sorry. >> Yep.
>> I keep calling you Ken. >> That's like the third. >> My wife's name is Deenise, not Bobby. So, >> uh, roll call vote. >> Longer than >> Tim. Yes. I am a yes. Bridget, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes.
>> Eric, yes. Steve, >> yes. Rob. >> Yes. >> Thank you. See you February 24th. >> Next item on our agenda is definitive plan DEF4 and special permit 35 for Warner Brew Lane. The owner applicant is
Mari's Legacy Real Estate. The applicant seeks to create three residential lots each with a duplex. This was continued from our January 6th meeting. And I believe the applicant's on Zoom. Paul, >> yes, Courtney Zand.
>> Good evening. How are you? >> Hello. Good evening. Um, I'm Courtney from PMP Consulting. Uh, here to talk about the Aubry Lane subdivision that we spoke about um at the meeting in January. Um,
is it all right if I share my screen? >> You can. All right. So, just a um quick review. Um we are proposing to develop this lot, one Aber Lane. Um
it's about 7.5 acres into three parcels um with a significant drainage basin um for storm water runoff. And here's the buildout that shows um
the proposed Aubber Lane and the three lots and a subdivision or not a subdivision um a duplex on each lot um for a total of six uh living units. Um
last time we were discussing uh screening between the development and the existing residents um as well as the requirement to have a park in a subdivision. Um, so we have
put together this landscaping plan to show um a proposed fence along this property line in between um the the new subdivision and the existing house here. Um and along this line where
the drainage basin will be, we have uh proposed black spruce trees. um along the line uh 3 ft off of the property line. Um and then we took some of the the empty space
in the culde-sac um and turned it into a park green area with um some plantings and benches and a flag pole in the middle um to qualify as a park and add some some green space and community feel
to the subdivision. Um, and I believe that covers most of what we had talked about last time. Um, are there any questions? That was that was the quick summary.
>> I think you hit off points that I had the uh screening with that fence. Is there going to be any plantings as well or just uh what are we proposing for a fence there exactly? >> Um, it's just a six-foot fence. Um the developer uh from Ma Legacy Real Estate
um is in communication with the owner of this property um Sunny and has asked him what kind of fence he would prefer. >> Very good. That that was going to be my next question. >> As long as they're in communication and they're they're both on the same page, that's appreciated.
>> Great. >> I do like the idea of the design in the pocket park, if you want to call it that, in the middle of the culde-sac. I think that's kind of cool looking. >> Yeah, I think it's appropriate and meets the criteria. >> Yeah, absolutely. Very uh creative way
and easy way to get it done. >> Uh if that's all you have to point out to us tonight, I'll go to board members for questions or comments. >> That sounds good. Tim, uh, I noticed in the
packet open gov that they're requesting a waiver for the landscape requirements. Uh, Paul, I don't think that was in your original memo. I don't think you had >> they added it. >> Um, in terms of from your perspective, Paul,
do you feel like >> they're basically saying this is too small to really merit a landscape plan? Right. >> Yes. And I should add to uh the environmental impact statement, you did ask that uh the conservation
director uh put his thoughts in to indicate if he had if he was okay with waving it. And you'll see that John Thomas did indicate he was fine with with waving it. >> So those would be two votes we need to take. Paul, correct? Yes.
>> Wave a vote and And Tim just answered, they're below 10 lots, which was a standard for the uh landscape architect. So, you'll be making five different votes on this
definitive plan, special permit for a duplex, special permit for the water resource protection district, and a waiver to the environmental impact study, and then the uh waiver for the landscape architect requirement. >> The two latter ones we'll take first when we get there. Any question, other
questions from the board? Rob, I'll go to you since you're online. >> I'm good, thanks. I'm just going to keep making sure you're awake. >> Oh, no. I'm awake. >> Any other members of the board? Any other questions, comments? If not, I'll
go to members of the public. We have one lone member of the public here with us tonight in attendance. And I do not see >> any hands raised at the moment online. I'll give it a minute in case anybody wants to chime in or jump up to the
microphone. Yes. >> Come on up. >> Come on up. Just name and address for the record and ask us whatever you want. >> And I I do apologize for that. Was rude. Um Carol Reed 25 Newton. You just said
that one of the things you're going to vote on is a waiver of the environmental impacts. Did I hear that right? The >> a waiver for an environmental impact study. >> Okay. Why would we wave that? Why would you wave that? that considering where this is,
>> it's in conjunction. We we asked our conservation director his opinion on it. >> Um >> Oh, so if he's good with it with it and it's that simple, >> correct? >> Oh, okay. So, >> for a smaller scale project, >> it's a smaller scale project. We've waved it multiple times in the past and
it's kind of on a case-byase basis >> um depending on how much is impacted. And Paul, they they're in front of conservation. Didn't or did not have to go in front of conservation? I don't remember. >> They they did. >> They did. Yes. So, they have they had a full plan in front of the conservation
board. Um and it's all approved. >> Um I I >> Courtney, I believe >> it's been approved. >> I can speak to that. Um we filed a notice of intent with the conservation commission um and a storm water report
that was peer reviewed by um PGB engineering um and that is all said but we were waiting until after um the planning board to close out conservation. So we'll be meeting with them again this coming Monday. >> So they've had a full notice of intent
in front of the conservation committee. Um, >> but did did she just say that they're they're like cool with it, but it's not official until Monday. >> Well, usually we go I don't >> It's kind of like chicken or their egg. We try to >> a lot of times both applicants will have both um boards meeting at the same time.
So, we'll be open and conservation will be open and just to make sure there's no big changes. We won't close either of the >> okay >> meetings until both boards are pretty much satisfied. So they don't have to if they were to close with conservation and we had to make changes, they would
potentially have to renotice and reopen more hearings. >> So we they try to >> keep everything open and and succinct at the same time. So there's >> just to make it easier. >> Okay. Well, we all want things easier. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> chair. Um Yes, Paul. >> I can read what John Thomas wrote,
>> please. >> He said he's the conservation director. He said an environmental impact statement may be waved by the planning board for this project. The project will will not result in a loss or impact of any wetlands, endangered species, habitats, and or environmentally sensitive areas
>> and we have that in open gov on the >> Yes. Yes. It's a public comment so people can find it. >> Very good. I see one hand raised on Zoom. It's labeled Debbie's Music. If you could unmute and state your name and address for the record, please.
>> Hi, Debbie Winston, 77 Elm Street. Uh, I have a question. It's going to be sewer. Correct. >> No, >> I mean septic. I mean septic. >> Yes. >> Correct.
>> Okay. I'm a question to the chair, I guess. I'm curious. Did we ask them to do sewer? And since I live on 77 Elm and I was uh being forced to do it, thank God the
town went against it. Why haven't we mentioned that for this development? I'm just curious. Thank you. >> Thank you, Courtney. You want to chime in with any conversations you've had with the town regarding that or
>> um there's no no sewer to connect to um on that portion. So, we're we're forced to do do septic systems. I know that there had been um talks of a plan to extend sewer and include that infrastructure, but I don't believe
that's an a requirement at this time. >> Correct. So, if it was available, you would probably be connecting. >> Yes, certainly. >> Thank you, Debbie. Does that answer your question?
>> Yes, it does. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised online or in person. If there's no other questions from the board, um before we close the public hearing, we could take votes on the landscape
waiver and talk about that. The landscape engineer, landscape design waiver, um and the waiver for the environmental impact study would be our first two things to talk about. Uh the only question about the landscape waiver is that doesn't wave that pocket
park situation, right? >> No, we're just waving a registered landscape architect from designing it. We're letting their engineer design it and we're saying we're happy with this plan. This is what they're going to be held to. >> Okay. >> We're just not making them go get a landscape architect to bless this and
>> Okay. Yeah. Any other questions about the landscape um waiver? >> Are you looking for motions on the waiverss or just discussion before we close? >> I was just looking for a discussion right now. We can vote on the waiver right now before we close. As far as I'm concerned,
it's not a if anyone wants to make a motion to >> motion to wave the landscape architect stamp requirement as discussed. >> Second. Second. >> We have a motion in multiple seconds to
wave the landscape engineer requirement. Tim, >> yes. >> I am a yes. Bridget, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yeah. >> Rob, >> yes.
>> Next thing to talk about would be waving the environmental impact study like we just talked about. It is in front of conservation. and it did get a full notice of intent. And if the conservation director had any quums and had any thoughts in his mind that we needed it, I would definitely assume he
would tell us no, absolutely you need that. If he's telling me it's we don't need it and this project doesn't affect enough land, I am more than comfortable with going with his recommendation. >> Motion to wave the environmental impact study. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. Tim, >> yes. >> Yes. Bridget, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yes. >> Rob, >> yes. >> There's those two housekeeping matters out of the way. >> Before we close, Courtney, is there
anything else you would like to talk about, bring to the board's attention, or if not, the chair would be entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. Let's say I don't know if she had a
chance to say anything. So sorry. So sorry. >> I was gonna say there was nothing. I'll just >> She was nodding her head. I took that as a Yes, >> that was a quick motion. Bridget, good job. I like it. >> Thanks. >> So, we have a motion. >> Excited. >> I liked it.
>> Is it still moved? >> We have a motion to close the public hearing for definitive plan 4 and special permit 35 for one second >> Brew Lane. We have a motion by Bridget and a second by Rob. Tim, >> yes. >> I mean, yes. Bridget, >> yes.
>> Frank, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yes. >> Rob, >> yes. >> Public hearing is now closed. We have three more votes to take on this. First vote
would be vote for the definitive plan. The definitive plan approval is needed to create the proposed three residential lots. Uh there's a set of goals listed um for in our subdivision regulations
that are needed to be met. If anybody wants to go over them, we can. Um they were in Paul's >> memo. If you want to look at it there or we can bring them up on the board or the chair would entertain a motion. Anybody? >> Rob, was that you looking to make a
motion? >> Yeah, I I was trying to allow some time just to make sure nobody wanted to. >> So, so move. It was a long one.
>> We have a motion to approve the definitive plan DEF4 for 1A brew Lane. >> Seconded. >> I think Steve got you, Eric. Either way, >> we have a motion in a second. Tim, >> yes. >> I'm a yes. Bridget, >> yes. >> Frank,
>> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yes. >> Rob, >> yes. >> One down, >> one to go. Second motion we'll be looking for is for the special permit for a duplex development. >> Some move.
>> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to approve the special permit for a duplex for Warner Brew Lane. Any other discussion? >> I I just I know we got some sort of clarification on this. But how
what what lot is this attached to >> the whole project? >> Like can we just make it like a mo like when there's a paper filed they put a lot number on it or something? Right. A parcel ID? >> Mhm.
>> Are are there going to be three separate papers made up? >> I'm sorry. Three separate >> special permit papers with lot say three separate lot ideas. they uh now that you've approved the the definitive plan
that it'll move forward to create the three new lots, >> right? >> So, they'll all have in the future uh uh specific identification numbers, >> right? >> So, like if we if we approve a
subdivision on one Abrew Lane, which one is one Abrew Lane? >> The whole project. Well, >> but it won't be. It'll have a different number at that point, >> but they will have new numbers. So, after the lots are created, the applicant will work with the fire
department to get all new addresses for all six units, >> right? But again, I and I maybe I'm not getting it. What parcel ID does this attach to? >> Well, technically, Steve, it doesn't have one yet. They don't even have new numbers. Well, well, right now it
attaches to the existing lot, >> but as you've created, you've authorized the creation of three new lots. This approval will get spread out to those three new lots. >> It'll be spread over those three new lots.
>> Steve, are you asking for three different motions? One for lot one, lot for lot two, and one for lot three. >> If we at least like make the motion to approve three duplexes, >> we I look at it. This is the project in front of us. were approving the project in front of us. >> Yeah. >> If we're not saying if we had I know
where you're saying you're going. If we had a really big if this was 10 duplexes and we had one that we didn't like, I could see us in some avenue going through and not approving one or something like that. But it's presented
to us as one project. That's how I've always looked at it. >> I I I can see it both ways. I just feel like there's a technical thing, but that's I mean, however we want to do it, but >> less motions the better. >> My opinion.
>> Okay. I mean, >> yeah, I got to go with that. >> So, we we do have a motion and a second to approve the special permit for a duplex for Warner Brew Lane. If there's no other further discussion, Tim, >> yes. >> I mean, yes. Bridget, >> yes.
>> Frank, >> yes. Eric, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yes. >> Rob, >> yes. >> One more. >> We're looking at a special permit for the Water Resource Protection District.
Um, this is required if we'll render impervious more than 15% or 2500 square ft of any lot in this district. Um, it sets a couple different uh standards that between us, our board, and the conservation
should be well taken care of. Uh any discussion on this? If not, the chair would entertain a motion. >> Paul, this is zone two or zone three. >> It is u two.
>> Oops. Uh it Sorry, almost there. >> Zone three. >> Yeah. So zone one is the well, zone two is the area that feeds into the well area. And zone three is the area that
feeds into the area that feeds into the well. >> Yes. >> I'll take that engineering description. So move. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Bridget and a second by Tim for the approval of the special
permit for the water resource protection district for Warner Brew Lane. Tim, >> yes. >> I am a yes. Bridget, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yes. >> Rob, >> yes. >> And I believe we're out of motions for this evening. Courtney,
>> we're done. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> We will work on Paul will work on getting all the necessary paperwork to you. >> That sounds fantastic. >> Do you um >> are you okay if I There's nothing really
particular about this. Does the board want to see this certificate of a approval at the next meeting or are you just authorizing the chair to review and then the clerk to to sign it? >> So, we have to do a certificate of approval for the definitive plan. Do you
guys want to read it next meeting or are you okay with Paul and I doing it? >> Doesn't matter either way. We're in our time frame. >> I'm okay with you guys handling. >> I'm okay with you if you're >> Yeah, you guys can do it. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. >> If you need a hand, let me know.
>> Mhm. >> Next item on our agenda. Good night, Courtney. Thank you very much. >> Good night. Thank you. >> Thank you. We have a discussion in possible vote on some bylaw amendments for town meeting by Steve. Steve, take
it away. >> Uh yeah, Paul, you put that up in the Yeah. >> Uh well, to lead it, I guess we have a few issues going on that have yet to be rectified with our bylaw. The board in various iterations have
tried to correct it over the past two years. Our work got denied. There are still errors there. It's not any of our faults. The number one thing we need to do is add an approved definition to the the
top of the shop housing. Right now, we don't have mixed use developments in our general bylaw definition group. It's only in the MBTA district. So, we don't have to update that yet. But just that that blue line uses within
top of the shop development etc. If we just add that that's enough to satisfy me right now. That's the only thing we can put on an article. That's fine. That'll fix the top of the shop housing issue that I've had
where it would require the special permits if this the residential use requires special permits. It requires a special permit if the commercial use requires special permit. It just can't be a free-for-all anymore
cuz right now it's being interpreted even beyond what I think it what I thought the problem was. >> I I thought it was just even getting out of hand when it was unlimited housing or units rather. But the way it's being interpreted is that anything at all. It
could be it could be a single family home above a threestory factory according to the the ruling that needs to be fixed immediately. So if we can just agree to change that definition, I'm good for the spring
meeting. There's more I want to do, but we can hold off till fall and I don't have a big pressure about that. >> There's a thousand things we need to do. I don't know in the pecking order of what's more important. I'm still salty from the last town meeting of doing anything. >> I think do have guidance that the town
manager doesn't want zoning articles, spring town meeting. They want to focus on budget and things like that. Um, so that's something to consider. Um, and my only other comment I I haven't
put both definitions side by side. Is this exactly mirroring MBTA? I mean, that's about the only thing >> that we want to we don't want to change MBTA. I'm I exactly match the MBTA with the top of the shop housing definition. >> So So that would be right off the bat
the the only thing I could stomach. Um anybody else have any We're getting kind of close into our Are we We even have time to What's our time frame, Paul, to do anything for spring? >> It's Tuesday. So if you're to take action, you need to do it now.
>> We have to do it tonight. >> Good. That would just be to have a placeholder on the warrant. >> Yes, that's just to have a placeholder. You if so, if you instruct me to move forward on this, I will submit a memo to the town manager. >> And to reiterate, be if we don't do this
until fall, every project that applies before that's changed >> is like grandfathered in with their processing. >> That creates a whole summer. >> Go ahead, Rob. >> Sorry. I I think I'm hearing that the smart
thing to do is break it up. Like Steve, you said there's other things you'd love to get, but we we should hold those and that this one thing is really the important thing to focus on plugging. So, we'll take this I would say we take this one thing and go ahead with it, but we keep it to this. So, we're not coming
in with a lot, >> right? A single line is very easy to explain. And if we say that it right now it stands as an anything go and we're just trying to limit it, that's our whole argument. I I've always had a thing too. We have so much to do. Let's throw a little something at every town
meeting. I've always kind of thought that also. >> Yeah. >> Um >> so defer the rest and take this is my thought. >> If we if we want to come back with some the same exact language as MBTA and
apply it, um I could stomach that. I'll take everyone else's opinion and then if the town manager is not that we have to go by I don't believe what they say but if there's a huge bit of push back which I don't
think there will be >> we'll deal with it then but we can vote a placeholder is a placeholder doesn't mean we have to fill it so at least it gives us the opportunity to kick it around more and get our >> I I think it's a worthy thing to do >> so how many units
>> I agree with Steve too on that we doesn't affect anything yet. Wouldn't affect the units. It would just regulate whether somebody can do things by right or by special permit or whether they're not allowed to do it.
>> And we did have it in our bylaw update that was denied. This was fixed in that >> this definition was updated in the bylaw thing that that got denied. Yes. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So, it's really just taking that exact
language and adding it in to where it is. >> I can uh stomach it for tonight. Anybody else? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, the chair would the chair would entertain a motion to authorize Paul to do some placeholder language for
Springtown meeting as discussed. >> Are we taking publiced? I didn't know if we're taking public com after. Okay, >> Tim, >> you're looking for a vote? >> Yes. >> I'd say yes. Placeholder. >> Yes on a placeholder. Bridget,
>> yes on a placeholder. >> Frank, >> yes on the placeholder. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Steve, I don't even have to ask you. >> Yes. >> Rob, >> yes. Still with us, Rob. >> Debbie, I see your hand raised. Do you have another question on this or is it
>> I saw Rob and Steve. Okay. Nope. >> Yes, I do. I have a comment and a question. I My comment is to thank everybody on the planning board for having the
citizens best interest at heart. It's very nice to see number one. And my question is, I didn't quite catch who was the one saying that he couldn't stomach any variation for the MBTA. Can you
clarify who that was? >> That was me, Debbie Allen. I said I couldn't we don't really want to change anything in the MBTA um zoning district right now. It was just approved by the state. Um any other change to that document is a complicated
approval, but what we're doing is taking a definition that we used in the MBTA zoning and apply it to this top of shop um adding it to the definitions um to tighten up our
uses of the in the top of the shop development. Um, >> okay. >> I with all due respect, I'm just asking a question. Would it be okay to stomach and anything goes? So, I'm glad to see
the end result was that we did have this place marker and this ties into the budget. So that comment about the town manager or whatnot, these multifamily and apartments, the
town has made it loud and clear they do not want them. The schools are already well over budget. So these things are tied together. >> Yeah. >> And we are working toward that. >> Debbie, could I >> appreciate it?
>> If I could add something. The original comment by Allan about stomaching the wording was he he doesn't want to stand at town meeting and explain two different definitions to the town in a confusing way. Not having any nothing to do with the MBTA itself.
>> Just consistency. >> Got it. Thank you. The second item we have for discussion this evening is regarding whether we want to um have the applicant at zero or a potential applicant again for zero Nukem Street um to make another informal
presentation to us for another concept plan um he's Paul do you want to speak to this? >> Sure. So the this applicant had um a property owner at this point had
submitted a a 40B plan that was denied by the ZBA and then some months ago present made an informal presentation to you. You gave some pretty direct comments. I mean you didn't have a plan in front of you but um certainly made it
clear that the amount asked for was a lot. um he has come back with a another concept and just wants the opportunity to represent it to you.
>> It's a it's a it would be a 55 and over community with cottage style housing and then uh independent living. >> I I don't I'll speak to it. I guess I I was looking at the plan the concept thing. Um,
again, conceptually, the idea of an an elderly community of sorts is great. The scale is still way out of out of whack. I there's no there's no way to build that project within our code the
way it's drawn. I I tried to get even close and I I can't. >> Also, the apartment building is just flatout not allowed. It could be a nursing home with many units as a single building. A nursing home is allowed. If it's assisted
living, that's fine. But his intention of not being assisted living, then it can't be an apartment. Um, so that's 95 units just in the apartment, that's that's crazy. When I did the math for the lot, if I did a cluster development,
which allows me to shrink the lot sizes in half, and I did the affordable housing at 30%, which allows me to triple the density, I get around 36 units total. I don't think they can fit more than 36
units on there under our bylaw. >> So, this is why Paul originally had asked me, he said, "Do you want to have him in for another discussion?" And I said, "No, let's us talk about it again because it doesn't seem like the scale has changed. It doesn't seem like they're taking our feedback of multiple
boards now." >> No. >> And multiple times. So, do we even want to hear or just say present, pull an app, pull a permit, and apply for it and we'll hear you then? I >> I I can say I mean I think it's very easy for Paul to just have an off-the- cuff conversation with them.
>> I believe I don't want to speak for Paul, but he's had many. >> Right. I I I mean, as far as my opinion, they're presenting a concept that cannot happen. It would be a waste of time for them to pull a permit for that because there's no permit to pull. >> I think it's just too big for the area
no matter what. Um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Way too many units. >> I I think it's I don't want to say it's a waste of our time. If he wants to I would give him the opportunity to come in and explain, but I think it's just a waste of time. >> I I I'm going to explain exactly what I just said here. >> You can watch the meeting and get it in five minutes.
>> Yeah. I mean, Can I >> Debbie talk to him? >> Yeah. I mean, I think we had the informal discussion. We gave him some feedback. It doesn't seem like all of our feedback is incorporated into this plan. At this point, I am
I think that we would need to be talking about an official proposal to give any more substantive feedback in guidance other than doesn't seem like you listened. >> No. >> So, I don't see the point in having
another informal discussion because it puts us it's not official, but it still puts us somewhat on record of how we feel about it. and when we don't have the full details of everything. So, it it's all downside.
>> Yeah. Again, like I said, it just there's no way for me to use our bylaw to build what they they're proposing. Not even close. So, >> no. >> I'm going to just echo both Tim and Steve. That's where I feel. >> Agreed. >> Yeah.
>> Agreed. >> It would make one of my meetings longer. >> Thanks, Rob. Go back on mute. No, I agree. I >> I think we're all >> put the bird on. >> I think we're all on the same page. >> Yeah, it's hard. >> Yeah. >> Uh Paul, so you'll direct our comments.
>> Good luck. >> They were comments I made to him prior. Yeah, >> but I will now say I have the backing. >> Also, Alan, I appreciate you um intervening for this and not having the presentation. >> It probably wouldn't have been much longer than this, but
>> Yeah. No, that's true. >> Other than that, as far as business before us tonight, we do have our upcoming meetings February 24th, March 17th, and March 31st. Then April 7th will be our last meeting with this makeup of the board before town
elections. Um Brian's going to be sending outstanding minutes um for the next meeting that he wants us to look at and vote on. So, be prepared for that. And Paul, anything else you would like us to talk about tonight? If not, the
chair >> No, just other than we're at that crossover point where any new application that comes in, it's we've got to make sure that the board will be here to be able to successfully vote on it or else we'll just ask them to agree
to wait till the new board starts. >> Yeah. Unless it's something small, >> right? ARS and things like that. it'd be very hard to fit in anything that needs to be peer-reviewed and anything at this point >> and give you multiple meetings, opportunities for multiple meetings. So,
I don't know what's on the horizon um other than what's scheduled for the 24th, but they're all in house now. >> Just I pro I still have that conflict on the next meeting, so I won't be here. >> No, Tim, on February 24th, Paul, what do
we have on that agenda that that's going to affect? Um, >> Sarah Mansfield, >> we have um 61 West Main was continued. Uh, we have uh 246 East Main, which is a marijuana retail store in going into an
existing building. Uh, Wheaten Place was also It's right next to the Duncan uh where the Dunkin Donuts is at East Maine. That's >> it's the one it's the Lucky Green Lady small building that we talked about before. No, but it's it's it's on the
other main um >> um across from Blue Star. >> Do you know where East Main East >> Main Duncan? >> Um Paul, it >> is that going through us for special permit approval? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep.
>> Um the Wheaten Places continue to the 24th. Um you're also going to get we're getting a request from uh Balffor across the street just to uh for shity. they're in their construction phase and um so uh
they're going to come back with a u some proposals and then um zero west main um that's the uh site of the a prior proposal a previous board had seen about
single room occupancy which this isn't. However, that one is also caught up in that provision on um because it's multif family and village commercial. They have some problems with it. Um so, we're going to try to work with them on
that, but that one um there are a few things now that they are not complying with in the adjacent R40 zoning. So, um trying to work with him. I don't know where this is going to land at this point, but um you know, so you have a
pretty busy schedule. >> Any other conflicts to the next meeting that anyone knows about? I know it's a little bit a ways. >> I'm good. >> I should be happy. >> Tim, we will muster on without you. I don't know what we will do. >> You'll survive.
>> You sure you don't want to zoom in? >> No. >> Okay. With that, the uh chair would entertain a motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. Seconded. >> We have a motion to adjourn in a second. Tim, >> yes. >> I'm yes. Bridget, >> yes. >> Frank,
>> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yes. >> Rob, >> yes. >> Our meeting is adjourned till February 24th. Good night, Mr. Wiggins. >> Good night, Peter. >> See you. Stay awake.