y welcome everybody to the Norton planning board's meeting of Tuesday March 11th 2025 again this is a public hybrid meeting so members of the public are wel to participate in person or remotely in person we are at the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street to join
our in Via video you can use the zoom link available on the meeting agenda or using the Zoom app 638 9291 060 there's also a dialing number available for those to join by phone the meeting will also be available on Norton
cable access after the session as well as the Norton media Center's YouTube page for future sessions please feel free to email questions for the board ahead of the meeting to Brian Cara Town staff so they can be shared with the members and read into the record if you're not able to attend I'll ask
anybody who's joining us online via Zoom to please mute your lines until it's ready until you're ready to speak just to make sure that we keep the interference and everything else down to a minimum so with that out of the way we'll dive into our agenda today and call it me the
order um we have a couple items in terms of planning board business and policies um one item Paul that I think he wanted to discuss was there is a request as we move forward closer to town meeting for a joint session with other boards and we had targeted that
for April the 1st um and there had been a potential request to see if that we could move that up to 6:00 correct yes that's our decision if we feel that that makes sense or if we feel that it's a little bit too early for everybody correct
okay so just a straw pull here my understanding is it's a it's tough if anybody's coming from Boston to get here for anything earlier than like 7 um I responded I can't get here until about
6:45 okay I'll be traveling I'll be away I might be able to be on I'm not sure it will be a challenge for me but you guys have been good about not making me do that too much so I was the only hold on I I think I think it was the minority of people who were requesting
the move anyway so you see what I mean how I'm play it okay so I think we're leaning towards prefer or not I think would be the the board's position to that Paul if you can pass that back to the 715 if that makes
sense for yeah okay um we don't have any bills or warrants to approve at this time so we can skip that agenda item uh we do have approval of minutes but unless anybody's really aun to get those done I'll save
those for the end when the rest of the items have been covered does that make sense okay uh final item under General business is the town manager screening committee um if anybody hasn't heard uh the current Town manager Mr units has
decided that he will be retiring I believe in June is that correct end of July end of July one of those months it starts with j um so the moderator is putting together a screening committee and one of the charges for the planning
board is to nominate somebody to serve on that committee they do not necessarily need to be member of the board um but they could be uh the moderator also has four at large positions that they would fill and I think they've stated that they're going
to try and fill those with anybody not on a current board um so do we have any initial thoughts on people that we would want to nominate for the screening committee not that I want to volunteer
myself for more work but like reviewing resumés and doing interviews is kind of what I do half of the day anyway so I nominate Tim Griffin I was going to say it's kind of what I do to do a lot of te building yeah
things now you actively want it though right I would not be opposed to it I've worked with my no if you feel like you AC want it go for it okay I do not present myself anybody else
okay I had a motion I think one of those can count as a second not sure who was the second I think it was Steve uh all in favor please say I I oppos exensions okay I'll figure out how we
tell my wife I volteer for more work later it's your birthday that's why not also willing to give away to anybody else that want to get yes okay so moving into the public hearing section of our agenda uh we have two applications in
front of us uh the first is a modification to a site plan review msp-3 for 360 South Worcester Street um plus the appli to come up and Paul I believe you're just going to share the site plan from your computer correct
Carlos you want I have it here yeah okay Carlos will we have to make any decisions or anything um Iain from it yeah understood if anybody has to abstain from this as it is it Alan do you have to as well or no
yep I think not that I want to make you to sit in the gallery but it might make sense just to uh step away from the can I just back up sure yes um biger challeng for give the
overview of what you're looking to do here sir um can I just that um you know last year you all approved a special permit and site plan for this when when Patriot relocation was proposing the development uh that that project didn't
happen and they're coming in now with a a site plan modification only because the project in total is under 10,000 square ft which uh which doesn't trigger a special permit so they're applying for the site plant
modification so Paul just to confirm in that respect if they would not use the special permit and so none of the conditions that were attached to the special perment are necessarily attached to the site plan we have to create new conditions correct and specifically the
more uh the specific conditions that were uh were in place for the pre prior one but the standard conditions would would transfer there everything anyway understood um so you can just give an overview of what you're looking what the
proposal is for the site um and I know there was uh at least one a better comment I think you were that I think you you were somebody from your team was seen on if you could just tie that into the presentation to even though we've seen it the public may not have so yep uh very good uh members of the board
chairman Carlos scy with civil and environmental Consultants representing the applicant uh for gall building corporation uh he's here with us today as well to talk about any sort of operational questions if there are any after we get through the overview of the project uh I I think it was highlighted
at the beginning the development was originally approved in uh August of last year so we're part of the board here today for a modification of that site plan refie application uh you'll find that the development as a whole uh maintains the original footprint that was proposed the access points are
identical to how they were originally proposed uh the overall limits of of pavement and building are actually less than they were as originally proposed uh the original approval was for a 35,200 ft² single larger building uh so
the development as proposed breaks those buildings up in a little more manageable manner that works better for the applicant and his proposed operation of the site uh which is uh or site civil construction contracting company uh so
what that means and we certainly elaborate on that if we need to is that uh there's a number of employees that come in beginning of the day the dark gray area that we have in the furnace site here is where some of the employees would park on the leftand portion of the site consistent with the original
application uh and then there would be some internal circulation to access uh one building here it's a small 12200 square foot building and then two somewhat larger buildings but still significantly smaller than the original development uh where there would be
access basically through these buildings uh for maintenance and Equipment management inside the buildings uh any of the site operations equipment storage staging uh management of you know construction materials that would be used on site somewhere else would be
happening behind the fence in portion on on the rear portion of the site uh so again the limits of the pavement the overall limited disturbance uh identical and a little bit smaller amounts of pavement bring than the original development uh so I'll quickly walk
through some of the site design elements here we have ours we also have been in front of Conservation Commission as well uh so we did receive uh the amended order of conditions yesterday uh so that was signed off on yesterday by the
conation commission if I can just ask anybody who's on mute to mute your lines please thank you thank you uh and the project has also been peer-reviewed uh by the town's peerreview consultant as well uh there were some uh small things that we fixed
in terms of the size of an outlet and some of the details on the plans we responded we understand there's no further comments from the pure viewer so the site layout that we spoke about again uh some access some parking on the left hand side You' got the two main buildings in the middle of the site and
then a smaller 1200t building there's some exterior storage on the Westerly portion of the site behind the fencing uh We've also identified snow storage which is one of the comments to pull that on top of the pavement so that snow milk could be managed through the storm water management system
on the right hand portion of the site one thing that is uh a reduction in the overall impact from the original approved development is there used to be uh some gravel and some Paving in this area over here so we're proposing basically the to grade that out as was orig proposed to leave it as lawn uh for
the time being so a reduction of the overall footprint and the impact on the easterly side of the site there a great a drainage standpoint uh we have a cach Basin located in the rear of the site it's a double cach basin that uh captures all the runoff from
those paved areas and conveys it to a subsurface storm water Detention Facility uh where the storm water will infiltrate uh identical to how the storm water was going to be managed under the previously approved project uh just right sized a little bit to reflect the fact that the building was gone and the
updated uh graving and drainage around the site uh we also have cach Bas in front of the site deep sun catch basins as well as a water quality unit to provide treatment before it gets to the infiltration system uh similar design that we have on the Eastern portion of
the site uh where we have some drainage inlets uh in the northeast corner here as well as some closer to the entrance here and the storm water runoff from buing roof areas we capture all that we provide the water quality we rout it through the subsurface storm water system uh again it was peer reviewed by
the peerreview consultant uh it's been through conservation Miss will Beau uh conformance with the wellness protection uh act regulations as well as the town's bylaws we're maintaining the 12 uh the 25t no disturb along the wetlands uh so
everything's fully compliant with the uh Wetlands regulations from a utility standpoint uh similar to how the previous uh project was developed we do have a septic system uh that's proposed to address the incidental amount of uh sewage that's
generated from the project as this kind of a contractor's yard there's really not a lot of activity here in terms of employees so there's not a lot of SE generation will be in front of the Board of Health for final review and approval of the septic system uh we have done test pits for the storm water as well as
the septic system as well all of those elements were designed to provide the amount of Separation we want from groundwater uh we have pretty good soil conditions here on the site as well that's conducive to both the storm water and the septic system as well uh we have water connections coming off south wester Street uh so all those will come
off of services that provide uh water service to the various buildings in the site uh the sewer generator from floor drains from inside the building those elects should be captured in tight tanks uh and those will be disposed of offsite and from a landscaping
perspective we recognize that the context of the site similar to the the previously improved project we have a dense landscape buffer proposed along the entire front edge of the project so there's really just the passenger cars using this portion of the site uh there's a fence that separates where the
main portion of the activity will happen in the rear of the yard from the front portion of the SES we have that dense landscape buffer room Frontage that extends along the entire site the original proposal actually had some loading docks and some more intensive uses along this side of the
building building uh all that's now being pushed further back to the site uh so that improves the the relationship to the site context across the street the dense vegetated buffer extends across the furniture of the site and wraps the corners as well so we're really trying
to improve the street scape uh as well that Prov visual as well as sound buffering in that area uh and then as far as the site operations uh there's been discussion of the hours of usage of the project and my
understanding is the applicant is uh agreeable to Monday and Friday 7:00 a.m. to dusk or 7:00 p.m. which I was earlier uh so as it relates to uh operations we're okay with those hours uh there's going to be limited idling they really
don't have a lot of waiting trucks in this kind of facility uh and they're going to be concentrated with the staff coming in the beginning of the day and as they leave for for projects they'll be leaving spread out through the end of the day um and then just arriving in similar all er uh and in the volume uh
we did provide updated trip generation analysis that identifies that the traffic generation is going to be a little bit lower than it was for the previously approved project there's less building less intensive use there'll be a little bit less impact on the workplace than was previously improved uh and then as far as building Heights
uh they're consistent with the zoning 25t Max height so everything is fully compliance modifications I was ask one more time everybody on Zoom can please mute your microphone thank you so that's what we have for the site design I don't know if people talk at
all questions I think from a a general comment I think something that we talked about a lot with the previous application was um this it's a unique site in that it's abing a lot of residential uses as well as some industrial
uses um and some of the industrial uses in proximity I'll just say do not have good reputation with the neighbors in terms of noise and in terms of General level of being good neighbors um could you just describe
kind of you talked about hours of operation kind of what is the day of the life at the site what happens at the site um is it a whole bunch of crushing rocks in construction or is it something else um thank you for your time uh we
are not using the site as a processing yard it's more of a lay down area um our mechanics are from centry they are traveling to Hudson New Hampshire and uh Aton Massachusetts so we're trying to get something closer to their location
so when we lay down uh jaw D or anything in the sort they can work on those those can get back on a truck and up the yard um the location is mainly to be a lay down area and have a little bit of work
space for whatever comes on off of a off of a site our other locations are extraction permanent locations and processing yards where they're permited uh we're not going for that permit here we're looking for this as a Contractor Yard and dry storage so Contractor Yard
and dry storage so people would come to the yard work on something and then it would go back out on the truck most likely yeah so um 700 a.m. uh probably four vehicles will come in and they'll go out and then you have a Fieldhouse uh
mechanic metal there and a uh somebody will work out of the office in the front and uh that's a safety room for the crushing side of our company additional questions for the applicant from the board here Mr
chair in regards to the eastern part of the property um which we actually have on the screen here um where you were before it was fine where it was okay um can you explain the reason for
clear cutting that portion that was previously expected to be paved it would seem a little bit more logical from a visual and sound barrier standpoint to leave it as is as opposed to clearcut it and grade it we we have no issues with
clear with leaving that open we just left that as a an opportunity if we did want to uh use utilize the space we could with ease um we know that the drainage system is adequate to um to take on that location um obviously uh
cost it's not going to be one of our primary locations so uh we're trying to keep the cost down on the construction side and the cost is a little bit higher than we were expecting um since we are going to PVE the entire site um asked by
uh conservation because originally uh approach the gravel yard in the rear so we decided since we're going to PVE that um let's forgo working on that side but if it's uh if that would be an issue we have no
issues with not clearing it you st clearing is is a short short value yeah I that would be my from a site plan perspective if you think you might use it then I would view it as we can view
view it as he may clearcut it at some point but for now it may stay as trees but from yeah does that make sense absolutely absolutely um obviously we're we're we're a growing company um and we have locations from New Hampshire now
we're working our way Southshore and space is always needed okay the storage are is in the back what are they storing so uh we have you know there'll obviously be coming back with a little bit of material so we have storage bins
so if they come back with a little bit of gravel and a little bit of stone they can adequately put them in into a 16 X6 storage bin and then obviously we have equipment that'll be stored on site and then off site but but this is primarily
gravel gravel that'll be very minuscule um so it'll be mainly gravel yeah Crush recyclable or uh a uh 3/4 in and half Stone okay will it be loaded in the morning every day um probably not but if it is it's it's probably a 3 to four
minute load time within the the work start period are the truck beds lined for any noise noise buffering no no they're not so the primarily you know short drop load uh 3 minutes per truck
is and how many trucks in the morning maybe two maybe three it's the max in the morning okay um on the hours of operation I I noticed um Mr sculti didn't mention Saturday and Sunday so Monday through Friday is
sufficient Monday through Friday but we like to have Saturdays open for a buffer they do have to come in okay just Saturday not Sunday not Sunday Sunday okay additional questions from the
board thank you okay Paul are there any specific conditions from the original application that you think we should pay special in mind to as we look at this I know we talked about hours of operation already right you're touching on them the hours of operation and again because
of the situation with the residents across the street any you know the buffering and trying to address noise and Light which uh their their light PL didn't show any off-site light intrusion but plus they're stopping a dusk or
seven so that right not a whole lot of lights needed no yeah no but just want to make sure that inter interaction with the with the residential areas addressed okay is there anything else you wanted
to present on the way it open up just for public comment and questions I just I want to add that uh the designing of these of these structures are more of a residential use look um they're not a heavy industrial style so um and also we're keeping
everything to the rear these buildings will act as a lot of sreen so there won't be a lot of visual for the Neighbors thank you I'll ask if we have anybody uh in
person who' like to come up and ask questions for the board here and if you're joining us zoom and you'd like to ask a question ask you please use the react function in the zoom meeting if you can raise your virtual hand we'll see it and uh I'll try and go back and forth as needed between the
two um so if anybody here in person who'd like to just come up and ask a question or anybody on the zoom meeting I'll just ramble here for 15 seconds or so just to make sure anybody can find the mute button if they need to or if
anybody wants to ask a question not seeing any action either oh there we go Miss Winston I see you have your virtual hand up if you wanted just to unmute and uh state your name and address for the record please uh Debbie Winston Elm
Street thank you I'm just curious I'm very concerned as I live on Elm Street that the planning board is going to mess this up
and risk our losing our grant there is no way that town meeting is going to pass this has nothing to do with what we're talking about unless we choose apostle that is unlikely to be built
Miss Winston we're currently discussing a project at 360 south wester Street oh okay I'll come over there thanks no worries thank you okay anything further from anybody in the room or anybody else not here I would have
been okay um so if we don't have any additional questions for the applicant are members prepared to vote vote with conditions do we want to continue to another session
to have a vote if we don't have specific objections I think my position would be to try to move forward um because we to get closer and closer to the election and town meeting we would will probably snowball our
agendas a little bit I'm comfortable my main concern was the traffic and they said it's going to be lower than what was originally approved so I'm fine I'm fine with moving ahead with the vote okay okay anything else from the
applicant that you wanted to stve before we move forward are you comfortable with us closing in public hearing and moving forward yeah I I think uh obviously we we prefer to move forward so if the board is ready to do so we're happy to you mentioned you were done with conservation that's always one of the things are you done with conservation is
there a chance for site plan to change Etc but that's already happened so conservation's done we're all set uh we should be good with the other boards okay thank you so if we're comtable moving forward the next action be a motion to close the
public hearing motion to close the public public hearing seconded okay thank you Eric and Jim any further discussion on the motion to close hearing none all in favor please say I I
opposed extensions we have two members who are abstaining from this okay and further action on the application for a modification to the site plan review motion to
approve uh modification site plan review number three with standard conditions and uh additional conditions as per the prior special condition or site plan review with the exception of the removal
of hours of operation on Sundays okay seconded okay um I think we can look at the conditions when we write them up uh in
our next session if that makes sense so okay we have a motion and a second to approve with conditions as noted anything further for a discussion prior to prior to a vote okay all in favor please say I I I
opposed exensions to abstaining okay thank you very much everybody thank you very much for your time okay next item on our agenda is site plan sp-13 and special permit
sp-18 for 10 West Main Street um something that I will add before we get into the discussion around this agenda item um this is a project which is currently in the historic district and then we may have members of the historic district commission attending our
meeting this evening um is anybody here in the room from that group okay do you know if you posted an agenda item for everybody to be here or no I have no idea okay okay so I will just say if you're on the historic district commission and
you're not sure if you've posted an agenda I would ask that please feel free to watch but I'd say if you're going to have maybe if you have more than three people who are watching I'd ask that probably doesn't make sense for anybody to speak because you may be turning into
open meeting law fun stuff for lack of a more official term um so I think I saw um a couple people join the meeting and some of them may be on the hisor district commission but I'll just say that as a note uh I'm not
aware of everybody's own membership of that committee but okay um we have four here we have four so yeah so I'll just again anybody on the S District Commission um my recommendation obviously I can't make
you is uh not to comment in the public comment section of this application and wait for it to be in front of your own board okay um so with that out of the way uh Mr Rich here I'll ask if you just want to go ahead and give an introduction of the project and what
you're looking for and I'll ask the plan as do as well okay great um Rich richio from field engineering on behalf of the applicants uh Old West Main see I have Chris and Kyle perar here as well they're the the owners of the project um we're here before you for a uh
Redevelopment of the the site at 10 West Main Street this is uh going to be the first uh new development in the The Village um Center core zoning District uh the proposal uh before you this evening is for a uh three-story building
uh with um retail space on the first floor about 24 2300 ft of retail space and then 18 residential units on the second and third floors um under the um VCC
District um they they call it the top of the shop uh use um the proposed building um will be serviced by uh water and sewer available on site uh we will need
to bring two new water services across West main to service the site um this the storm water management facilities for the site will take will um be proposed under the parking lot we did go through a peer review with your town consultant on that and received a uh a
clean review um this afternoon uh with regards to um to the stor motor management standards as on on that project um as the site plan shows we're proposing 44 parking spaces to meet the
uses within the building there will be this over here 15 spaces along the Westerly property line and another um 29 spaces
under the second and third stories of the building um to meet the to meet the uses of the both the residential use and the the retail space um while parking the parking requirements in the BCC aren't necessarily required to meet the
minimum spaces per zoning we do meet the minimum for the uses we have proposed at this time with the 44 spaces uh we're also proposing a um Fen dumpster pad has shown on the plan um reconstruction of
the sidewalk along the frontage and um concrete sidewalks to um provide access to the site the main access for the retail will be along West Main Street and the main access for the residential uses would be under the
garage uh be under the building um as everyone knows the goals of the BCC District would to orient the buildings as close to the street as we can um to support public activity save
pedestrian access and um try to fit into the into the to the downtown The Village area and that's what we're we're hoping to do with this project we do have a uh extensive landcaping plan that we've proposed um meets the
requirements for numbers of trees along the frontage and um exceeds the the numbers of shrubs and trees required overall we have um had discussions with the town on with regards to the um affordable aspects of this I know um
your plan is um uh me to you um there was there's a special permit requirement for affordable housing um and I believe it's two units or a payment in r that that's still an ongoing discussion with the
town we did receive um your planners uh comments um on the on our submitt we we have uh added um park benches along the frontage to comply with that requirement and also um bike um concrete patch for
bike uh racks at the at the ratios required for both the retail space and the residential space there's enough room for for 20 bike parking spaces on the site um we also um did add a notation for wallpack
lighting on the on the building to illuminate the parking as necessary that would be shielded to minimize the spill over of bike that hasn't been um completely designed out as of yet that would be done as part of the architecturals but um we would be
committed to to comply with any of those standards as part of the project um the other question was with regards to the traffic um circulation in and out of the site um as everyone knows it's it's a
tight tough site um in order to improve conditions we we made sure the configuration of the site would use the existing curb cut furthest away from the uh from the intersection and um will be closing off
the other curb cut um that's located closer to the church also um we are committed to putting um signage on the site to to uh limit left turns out of the site during Peak peak hours if um I don't
think anybody's going to try to take left out of there during peak hours if they are there themselves but that's part of uh the signage we've added on the plan um we will have to submit um obviously a curve cut uh application with mascot and um
the hope would be to to move forward you know get our local permits as soon as we can so we can stop that process we did submit some um traffic count data for the number of uh residential units and the and the retail spaces and compared that to the existing
traffic flow over there and given the size of the site and the number of units uh we feel that that the the impact would be minimal on the overall numbers that that see that see that intersection on a daily basis and I that basically summarizes
the project look forward to questions from the board and and the public as well Paul can you just give just an overview of your um summary in terms of the projects in terms of um what relief
specifically that they're seeking under under the board and then any of your comments sure so um there's two permits they're seeking one is a a site plan for because there's three or more and I should back up and say one of the things we were trying to achieve with Village
Center core was um more efficient approval process and certain things were which would normally be a special permit our our site plan so top of the shop housing in this district is by uh is by right so multif Family itself did not
trigger a special permit but what did trigger it was the affordable housing requirement because any if we have six or more units it triggers the affordable housing requirement of 10% and that is by special permit so the special permit
requirement that you would be looking at the criteria is are they providing 10% of the units and are they doing it on site or uh payment in L or some other options and then there's the site plan
okay and overall on the actually sorry any other comments from you Paul any that Mr richair mentioned he acted on a couple of them already right right um you know I would just steep back about 5 years when we were working on this and
chair Allan you you were U both with us helping to create Village Center core and you recall you know as Rich was saying we're trying to create a more vibrant area here so it is I was excited when they came forward with this we were
trying to create you know more of a center there um and and you know on top of the shop with a requirement for first floor retail um so it's it's kind of exciting that it only took 5 years but we're here and uh
in our world that's a short time between the sewer should also you know point out too that the sewer line was put in there about five or six years ago as well so this is one of the projects that happened because that sewer was there along with some other things that have
happened in that area so um this is uh you uh certainly those two things you'll be working on um this is not in conservation jurisdiction it's not within 100 ft of wetland so we were managing the peer review and um as rich
said the peer reviewer looked at storm water there was some correspondence back and forth but peer review was fine with it um this is also within the historic district so we've begun uh coordinating with the applicant and the historic district commission to have them uh
review it and they have to issue a certificate of appropriateness uh my understanding is they have not yet qu set their public meeting but they're in the process of doing so okay um and in terms of the I was
going to say Paul from the historic district perspective what they would be looking for is generally is everything what is in their purview what is not what changes could we potentially expect so in
best SL worst case scenarios just in terms of since we have 6 weeks until the April election for this board right so they actually have some pretty broad uh jurisdiction here they can even deal with um new
construction uh they can obviously deal with architecture they can look at the you know the the lot the area and determine the look at size and scope they can even add Beyond uh the zoning bylaw so those
are those are aspects that are within their jurisdiction that they will need to review and make a determination why would be the cor correct way to look at that Sor wide latitude would be the correct way to at that okay right I would just view them
as you would say conservation where they could affect the footprint historic district can as well okay Mr chair can we go back to the special Apartments quick sure sure so I think there's a special permit for affordable housing only and then there's a site plan that's it what about water
protection district I thought I read in Falls memo it's in the water protection district doesn't that require a special permit also oh that that's that's true that's yes it's in zone three of the Water Resource Protection District so it's not the well area or the area that feeds the well area it's the area that
feeds the area that feeds the well area right so my apologies that's another one there's a few boxes to check in that also to notify conservation right I don't know if they notified and I think it's Board of Health notified right they're all're all they're all notified
so again there too you just have to make sure you're not having an adverse impact on on the aquifer so this was same situation we had a few years ago with Cumberland Farms a very different situation so they're not proposing underground tanks
yes so that' be three another we'd have to vote on that also as well yes thank you I just have one thing um we are meeting with the historic district on the 25 of March um to discuss this project
both the owners and The Architects will be there the 25th so in two weeks from now two weeks yes we we have proposing meeting dates apparently don't we I guess yes yeah so you won't be here on the 25th obviously um so we would
look when we get to early April will need to understand just a path forward that we take between the two boards with that so that makes sense um I think you read my mind when you moveed to the next poster there I was going to ask about what does the building look like and in terms of we
talked about first floor retail and parking underneath what is how we're talking about residential units above how many of them how many bedrooms Etc correct um so there's 18 total residential units um nine on each floor
there would be five uh two bedroom and four one-bedroom units on each floor um they be serviced by uh by a central elevator and two um stairway access egresses from the ground level uh the elevator is located Central in the
central part of the building itself um I don't know do you have the ability to put this on the screen the the rending okay great did you want that or did you want the internal um I think this is good to see the pictures
yeah so the intent would be to match the architecture of the of the church building uh try to match what's existing downtown uh down in the Village area with the same materials of construction on the on the facades and such um a lot
of white a lot of black white and black contrasting colors um the the underground not underground the surface surface parking below the below the second and third floors um as you can see in the uh in the uh
rendering is is pretty well hidden um and that that's the intent of it like I said is looks like there be a lot of glass along the front on the on the lower level for the retail um spaces um and three entrances off of the front and
then there's also one entrance off the side to the to the retail side of things the ground level and like I said there's also the main residential entrance from the parking garage underneath for the second and third levels okay thank
you additional questions from the board here you there's a few of us Steve first and you actually asked a question okay so I'm all right uh well first off I'd like
to say like this looks great from your from your end I have a technical question for The Bard um going forward this is the first time I would be approving a topof the shop housing and doing so in the Village
Center core district am I to assume and the board to assume going forward that top of the shop housing means any type of housing by right or only the housing
as reflected in the zoning District if the zoning District says you can have a single family home by right when a duplex by special permit do you need a special permit for the housing above the top of the shop or does it supersede that special permit and just
make any type of housing by right so in the Village Center core top of the shop housing top of the shop housing is allowed by right they don't designate a number of units tied to it so theoretically under what you're saying
you could just do retail first floor and one unit above and that would be by right unless something else triggered a special permit and so my my reason why is because in the Village Center core we allow we don't
allow a single family home we don't allow a duplex we don't allow multif family we allow a bed and breakfast by right we allow a tourist home by special permit we allow senior housing by special permit and we allow hotels
and motels by special permit so for this top the shop does that give us the ability it supersedes the no of the multif family and gives us permission as a special permit to say yes a multif
family can go above ha is that what like I'm feel like there's a conflict between the two lines in the use table between top of the shop being allowed and multif family being not allowed there's there's a conflict and a precedent to be set and I have not
done that yet so I want to know what the rest of the board feels about that okay no one's done it yet right I think part of the answer is in the definition for top of the shop which is residential use located in the same building as non-residential where the
non-residential use occupies the ground floor and the residential use occupy space above the ground floor if if I could use that same logic does that mean that any commercial use including those not allowed currently in the commercial Zone would also be allowed at the
bottom if it's if it's a use that's specifically prohibited then no you would not be able to do it so multi family is explicitly prohibited right but in essence you could have multif family as long as you have commercial on the first floor
it just can't be multif family alone does the board feel or recognize any conflict in that that's how it was intended when we were talking about I understand your confusion right yeah no it's I agree with the intent I of the project but
there is like the the idea that it says no explicitly am I allowed to grant that sorry Steve could you restate that please well because it says no explicitly to multif family am I allowed by saying top of the shop housing am I
allowed to Grant multif family or am I restricted only to the types of housing that are currently permitted within the district oh okay so you would be able to do so as we Define multif family it just
means that in the Village Center core that it's residential own they standalone a standalone so but what they're proposing is multif family it's just has the commercial component on the first floor
and that was the intent of what you guys did five years ago with yes I think what you're looking for Steve is like a clarification in the use table that would specify no star other than top of the shop or something like that I agree with the
concept I just want to say that we're all setting a precedent going forward when a top of the shop comes up again we have the board going forward whether it's us or other members are going to have wiggle room to put multif family on top or not right I understand yeah I as
long as the board's recognizing that that's where we're going forward and maybe going forward in the recod we add a little bit of clarification to the definition not that we need to add more stuff to the recodification sure Tim when did we have the dentist
office does that have four units above yes yes down on right across the street from commercial not Village commercial core good um but yeah so I think your the
point of clarification is well raised so um additional questions for the applicant at this point I got one quick one uh fire department have they looked at this and signed off iary meeting with the th department they were in that meeting and
they've looked at the the layout and everything and didn't have any any major concerns do we have any paperwor I think I saw an open gum there were a lot of departments that said like review in process correct so if we can review completes usually we have a turning
analysis I don't see how they access part of the site at the rear of the building side closest to the church it just seems like they would have an access problem not I would ever speak for them I just want usually we would see some type of turning radius or something with a development like this
especially with a lot of residential involved um definitely want an email from them or something from them yeah we can get something from Jason if it's not uh reflected in in the application system we can see like in
process of check complete checked complete so I think there's a they haven't checked it yet there's a few that aren't checked complete across different departments not J Fire so we just need to tie those up [Music] so just just to let everybody know I just speak to uh Chief Robin I we
discussed the turning radius the truck going in and he was fine with it the way it was laid out so we just can't go by the he was yes understood understood but they they know well about okay um additional questions from the board
Miss Parker uh can you point out on the um display plan where snow storage is going to be placed we would we would be going in in the open Green Space areas in here and back in in
this area back in here it's if there's not enough room we'd have to contract with somebody to truck it off site but I mean the site is uh pretty limited with what we can what we can fit there where are your deliveries and loading
for the retail shops please they would have they would have to pull into the into the parking spot into and we're not expecting any kind of intensive retail use coffee shop still needs supplies right no I know I understand but it would be it would have to take place off
site I mean off Street in in the um in the uh in the parking area where is the resident guest parking there are I think that's laid I think that's laid out on the architectural
drawing um cuz it seems to be the parking spaces that are all under the building are assigned to the residents correct and you have retail parking my assum should be the rear of the site but there is no
rear of the site they're using every square inch of that site yeah we have if you look at the parking plan that's on the screen there are 1 through 7 through 14 18 there's there's two visitor spaces
on the back corner near the dumpster spot and then the spaces along the side would be available for for visitors when they're not being used by the retail okay I don't mind the use I'm glad there's something going in there I do
have an issue with the scale it seems like the space was maximized at the sacrifice of functionality um this is a it's a difficult lot given its placement and
being so close to a really difficult intersection to begin with um I I think there's a need to be thoughtful about the design because of the location and I think there needs to be car should be able to without having
to three-point turn in a few different occasions should be able to navigate and they can't even get from the back to the front there's no way to turn around here the functionality of the site seems suboptimal to me for traffic flow we did
provide turns for the cars in the residential parking garage these these bump outs here are paved so that they can back out and and leave okay same thing with here um these are going to be reserved for the residents underneath it won't be public going into that those
parking spaces um and then the parking spaces along here the the access aisle has been designed to accommodate pulling in and backing out in the spaces yeah I'm just even thinking about something as simple as trash removal you're going
to bring in a trash truck to empty out the dumpster and it's just going to cause chaos you're going to be blocking all kinds of parking you're going to be blocking that whole back section of
parking they going to back in from 123 I mean how are they even emptying a dumpster this is the dumpster pad here I get it yep so they pull in they do it pull in and then back in and then pull out they do it from the back side or the same thing if they did it from the front
yeah yeah some trucks will pull the dumpster back up and over it's a front load the flow of this is just I'm viewing it as suboptimal but I'll let the historic district weigh in a little bit further on
that can we request a traffic study for a impact on the level of service for that intersection they provided traffic counts and um yeah I mean I think having seen enough traffic studies and the volume that goes through that
intersection might expectation is whatever you're going to have coming in and out of this site is not going to make a dent in the overall volume that flows through that intersection on a daily basis I'm thinking the challenge is that when you have a difficult
intersection why are you putting more there right is the argument that we've gotten with other projects in the past which yeah yeah I I I just don't think it flows very nicely in in my opinion
okay but I I'm going to let the historic district weigh in on that additional questions from the board I got a couple more quick ones Tim the the back eight parking spots accessing those from underneath the building is that the idea yes yes
you see those do dots those are columns those are the columns that are lined up with the with the packing lines y yes um and then this is the landscape plan correct this does show the planting I do have a separate Landscaping plan so we do have some considerations for buffering we do
is it residential right behind I believe it's right here but it's a couple to Seminary way maybe I don't know if it goes to Seminary [Music] but there's a there's two houses we do have some yeah never mind yeah I'm off
yeah buffering considerations between districts there's actually going to be a solid fence we're relocating the existing fence there to the property line yeah and I think are we putting a new or we just yeah like the white the vinyl yeah there's going to be a screening fence across that back
property line to the residential use as well I think it's might need to look in that uh Wetlands Protection District there's some buffering guidelines in there that you're going to have to look at um it's just you can't buffer a project like
this from residential I guess is what I'm getting at no matter what we do the fence isn't going to do it planting not going to do it from a visual standpoint from a visual standpoint from a noise standpoint I don't think it's going to be a problem but my recollection in that Wetlands bylaw District bylaw there is
some buffering guide lines possibly W I didn't think it was a just water district oh oh okay can you just take a note Paul just to review if there any buffering guidelines with that um with that permit
that's for the special permit for the zone three correct y additional questions or comments for the applicant otherwise I'll turn the public comment here I'm going need to step
okay if you don't mind Mr CH I'll just go to public comment here if there's anybody in person who'd like to speak or anybody who's joining the zoom meeting and again AL I said at the beginning um members of the store District commission I'll ask if you please hold your comments and save those for your own
meeting to uh keep in compliance with open meeting law you just state your name and address for the record please hi Christine carmichel 15 Barrow Street um I am also a volunteer at 18 West Main Street uh
which buts the other side of this proposed um property at the old schoolhouse um we're at one room Schoolhouse very small and looking at this gigantic building I think we're not
going to have a view of anything besides the walls of this building and some cars out in the parking lot um we are a nonprofit organization we have tours within the building we have school kids come in the building and one of the
things we show because we are in a historic district now the historic district is different from the Historic Society um we point out some of the landmarks including the church which I don't see how they're going to see that over this large well actually the rendering
picture I don't know how they're going to see that over this building um the town common we point out um these are all very important historic facts because we needed that church in the common is where the first church was in
order to be established as a town um we have a lot of historic buildings within sight of this building and I think that is going to kind of take away from the New England charm of our
historic buildings they're going to be seeing this huge large building that maybe belongs in a city not next door to a little one room Schoolhouse and a you know very old 1834 Church um the other
things that we have a concern with is the fact that there's 18 condos here and they don't have any outside space really except a couple of benches and we're a private organization we have a yard
which I believe starts where those cars end and we've had trouble with tenants on our other side with the kids playing in our backyard um their guests parking in our parking lot and we're a museum
we're not a playground we're not a place where you can walk your dogs and leave their stuffs behind so um we're we're concerned with the number of units in that and the fact that there isn't a lot of space and with only two guest parking
from what I understand that doesn't seem like a lot when you have 18 condos that are going into this I I think the it really needs to to be scaled down uh we've been asked numerous times to give
up some of our land for parking and we use our land we have um events on our property and all I can think of is Joanie Mitchell's words from Yellow Taxi they paved Paradise and put in a
parking lot which is what we're going to be seeing the parking lot in this gigantuous building so I just wanted to let you know that I I think this is kind of large for where it's going thank you thank you Miss
carco and Dean Swicker and I'm On The Board of Trustees for the Unitarian Church I just want to confirm just to confir are you you said you were on the historic district commission yeah but I'm not going to talk about that uh I
think you're still getting into dangerous territory because you have other members of your board joining the meeting so if they hear your comments and it comes of deliberation okay so I'm not I'm not trying to shut you down I'm just don't want you to get in trouble so yeah I don't want to get
in wise man Mr swy please boxman 14 lling I'm sorry I'm just coming in for the first time did you guys talk to the state about this property at all in terms of if they want to
straighten out the intersection of 140 and 123 and get rid of the Jog and all the backed up traffic and if we again not to skip to another meeting but if we put in the MBTA and bring in you know 750 units that that inse second is going to be Madness you know it's going to be
it's already backed up to the school one way back up to the Fest station the other way you know way past the post office another way going back past the baseball field on 140 that way so what I'm getting at is right in
between the church and this building three story building how many units 18 units anyway if that's put up that eliminates an idea of going having the 140 go straight away to the to the you know what I'm
saying it would go like right in between those buildings you don't want that building and then have 140 go straight away they would have to have imminent domain with three buildings right back including the uh the New England telephone exchange building whatever you want to call it I know that was an
option I know they talked to Verizon they said it would cost them seven figures to move that site or something like that but if they're still using that type of technology I mean that's going back that's a whole yeah okay but if they take that three properties by imminent domain they could straighten out that street that section without
having the jog so you better consider that I would I would hold off and talk to at least talk to District 5 down Taunton there uh from the Mass DOT and see if if they have an idea of going you know once they fix northwester Street in
South orer the next idea is this property here in Norton so if they come in and you put it in a building like that they're going to throw it up and we're going to be traffic City for the rest of you know for eternity in Norton understood thank
you okay additional comments from anybody here okay and then we talked about how the historic district commission has wide latitude and how they're going to look at this building so it's going to be interesting in how we look at this
site plan as they look at it and as we look at it um I we're just going to have to play that by year unless uh anybody has additional thoughts I'm going to comment Mr chairman just put your mic down so they
can hear you um because I am on the traffic committee I know the proposals that are being considered and I don't want to speak to which ones are being how much but I think this building actually misses the because of where the thing taking the road I don't think we'd
be looking at a situation where we then want to send a road right through when they just put that building yeah okay um thank you rob yeah know that's been an ongoing discussion for uh for decades in terms of fixing the center if it was
simple it would have been done a long time ago so look up the rotary idea okay um so I think unless anybody has anything further Mr Richie if you want
to come up I think our next our my feeling would be that we will want to continue this until after they've spoken to the store District on the 25th so it would be our first April meeting here is any any objections to that from the board
no Paul you think that makes sense that would be April 1 okay motion to continue any objections to that from your side no okay motion to continue I thought we were holding April 1 unless it was needed do we need it there's
or do I have my dates backwards April 8 is that sorry my apologies so the first won't just be a joint meeting it will be a regular meeting for us and a join meeting it'll be lots of fun April Fool April 1 best day to do
all the same yes okay so we have motion do we have a second second okay we have motion a second to continue to our April 1 meeting any further discussion hearing none all in favor please say I I
oppose extensions okay we'll see you in a few weeks thank you thank you okay now to the main event this this evening uh continue discussion on the
mbda community Zoning for penal town meeting and I just want to clarify that this is not the noticed public session with all of the parcels having received their notice that we voted on last session so we're continuing discussion
anybody who all the property owners for those Parcels that voted on our last session I think just got their notices within the past few days or so correct so that would be our next session would be when all of those residents would be
have a chance to come in exactly um so I think today what I'm looking to I think potentially accomplish is Paul had sent around his updated review from sured looking at the parcels that we noticed looking at how big they are what
they include um and then potentially take some swings at the language since we haven't really touched on that significantly we want to make sure that we have that we do look at that and speak to I think some of the feedback that we got at time meeting and other things to ways we should potentially
look to refine it so um Paul did you want to start and just give an overview of the review that sered had done and go from there sure I'll just jump right to it so after you all had um selected the four or five areas I went ahead and
directed and asked serit our regional planning agency to calculate uh the compliance model for it um so what I'm going to show you real quick are the I I combined 274 East Main and redn because
they're adjacent to one another but um but we can handle them differently they just put them on one right you can handle them differently um absolutely um so with Norton Glenn they based on their calculations
this would be 25 acres they modeled that you could potentially do 343 unit 150 or there and that you would have the net of around 193 so this could be a good area for you know meeting half of that
requirement um so Mansfield AV 30 they modeled 32 and A2 Acres uh they modeled that it could potentially do 481 again this is just a numerical calculation not what's going
to happen there uh but uh so you could this one could also be another good one for if you were looking to split it and in fact if you combine Norton Glenn and Mansfield you we could get over we could get to 57 acres and
824 units so this could give you an opportunity to shave a bit off if you wanted to get closer to it uh again that's an option just wanted to provide you with some of these options um barrows uh 138 barrows uh this is 25
acres and and it modeled at 405 units uh so as you know there's no residential there so this would be a full increase um I'm hearing still that mass Military Support is looking at this site um
so yeah there's nothing there now and uh right the odds of sewer are going there between slim and none and slim just left town right so I looked at 138 and Norton Glenn and
we just missed it it's unbelievable we got 50 acres but two units too little I mean we could recalculate that if we if we wanted to do 138 barrows in Norton Glenn the benefit there would be you'd have two different elementary
schools um but I also looked at 138 in Mansfield which does have the same Elementary School it that option would give would help us meet it meet compliance and then um just in this case last Redmill and
274 274 is 14 almost 15 Acres it modeled at 237 units but Redmill would actually exceed the standards in on its own it would do it 51 Acres 831 units
modeled and uh so you could see there that Redmill alone could do it you could combine it but you know certainly what we're here in is don't do that um so you have some options okay you have a number of options to choose
from one of the things that I noticed in serent interview related to The Glenn is they're talking about the subsidized housing inventory right and it currently counts for 150 units under our affordable counts correct correct 150
units yes so this may be just this is a question just in terms of how all of that works with the state so said the deed restrictions look like they're expiring in 2033 right so right now those properties under a deed restriction they have to be
affordable after 2033 they could do whatever they want do they do they need to come back to us to meet affordable housing under the regular bylaws or no or it depends what they do because this
was approved as Section 8 housing back in the early' 70s so we've had other than building permits I'm not aware of any approval that the planning board's given I've looked into this and couldn't find it but again one one
benefit if if this area were to be designated this would become a conforming use again but um so this was Norton Glenn in around 2015 or 16 was their affordability was
re-up with their with I can't remember who their subsidizing agency was so that's where that 2033 deadline comes from was the deed came from an agreement to continue with the subsidies so they could continue that process but that's through essentially
through HUD so we have no control over what that does after 2033 no okay no we were not the party to it I got a question um you said the Glenn and TW
together come two units short um yeah uh 748 was the calculation right I'm just trying to get get y yes now for your Norton Glenn calculation did you include the little side section
not the main Parcels there's like a couple just the ones that were off of Norton Glen Road the ones with development on it we didn't notice the other ones right you instructed us not to Parcels on the paper Street yeah we
could potentially look to there might be some thing we have further in the compliance model if we wanted to choose this and we wanted to not do something else to nudge something a little bit in
terms of a setback or something Paul with the deed restriction coming off in 33 would that make this more desirable for them to start over because they don't have that deed restriction anymore it it'll depend on what their business model is if they're an
affordable housing developer then I mean the benefit to them there would be again now if they wanted to do something if they wanted to add more or as these units get older and they want to rebuild U adding this more op instead of
just low income yes but if we did if they did try to go under this bylaw they would need to meet the affordable housing that we put into it right which would be 10% right or a payment in Li of but this is 100% right
now exactly and this is deeply affordable yes and I and I will say we cannot require that it's 100% affordable agreed the state already said no so one of the things to consider that is that could drop our affordable housing stock
to below 10% mhm but we have no control over it and we can't force them to do it's just a something to consider so in 2033 if they don't reup then somebody's going to we could lose it then regardless of what we did with it
tonight here correct exactly right absolutely okay I'm just worried that that makes it more appealing to actually build on and start over cuz there wouldn't be a cap necessarily so to speak on what they could they could slap the village
commercial on it and still have apartments or condos and have a way bigger you you could they could take the MBTA yes they could they could do that and they would need to meet everything that we lay out here right but again anything right but it would go from 100%
down to 10 could go to 100% down to 10 no matter even if right but I'm saying now doesn't stop them from doing they could just but putting the MBTA overlay on it changes the Zone which would give them more freedom to do that now it would yes that's what
my if they wanted to add some more it would give opportunities they could options especially because they're not a conforming use right now they can't re yeah without the MBTA yeah but probably
continue as the use that they are not under subsidized mhm which may or may not be feasible so but just something to consider I wanted to call it out with how we look at this from a long-term
perspective um so we looked at this any other specific comments question or concerns from the board in terms of looking at the numbers of this looking at everything else understanding that at the next meeting we're going to have all
of the owners and butters available to to comment as well what's the lowest net option that we have that would be probably Redmill think I have that that
would probably be Redmill because it's already built out fairly densely I feel like East m is the with the parcels that we've noticed East M doesn't help us anywhere cuz it's 15 so you need other stuff you need to turn in you need a
third Zone to do anything basically the one you need to do like a partial somewhere else to make it but all those other options are too most of them are right over just over 50 so this doesn't 24 really doesn't give us is red Mill's
net increase 678 units overall well again modeled it's just a it's just the modeling exercise multiple Parcels so we could actually we can't shave much because it's 51 well condominium this becomes real
tricky I don't want to bore you with the details but technically I think it's one lot and then you have all the condos have their own individual lot numbers with it it's all like a cluster development well no clusters would still
have their own parcel ID number I mean there's no way Redmill it's one we treat it as one line basically okay right so it's 8:31 if somebody tore everything down and started from scratch and built to maximum capacity yes right but when we
proposed TPC and it modeled at whatever a thousand you know we had quite a bit of push back on why are you giving them more yeah but I think that I yes I definitely remember that
cuz um I'm just pointing out we have a similar situation here but because it's not empty I think there that discussion is much yeah they do have open land though can they build on that open land it's not
all conservation most of that's a conservation restriction so the 51 acres is only where the condos are currently I believe so can we confirm yeah okay yeah Mr chairman yes you you were where I had a presentation I wanted to do yeah is
there Pi the best time um if you want to share it you can um take the screen from Paul I think we've kind of touched on a little bit of our continue speaking
up [Applause] take up as well it's so taking this up from the beginning um this is basically and I want to suggest this this is a reality we have a lot of people in this town and
I do not support this I argue with some of them about it to want to just say no to anything we come up with they've already decided they're going to do that and they don't care what we come to town meeting with they're just planting on saying that okay Rob are you on the right page cuz I know he said from the
beginning but it's he's getting there it is the beginning it's just a title slide he's good yeah okay um and then uh this is pry so um yeah I see it's it's showing up kind of weird on the screen I don't know why because I have the full screen going on here we can see it
you're good okay but this is the part that's cut off is this is how to make it past town meeting I think what I'm suggesting has maybe a 40% chance at best but it's still I believe our best and only chance with what we're the reality we're facing with the community
Ops um moved I don't know why it's not moving huh maybe you got a multiple screen thing going on presentation yeah I'm in presentation mode I don't think it's showing my present he's seeing a full screen on his so it's probably like a multim monitor
thing going on yeah it's a Mac yeah yeah go ahead okay the wonders of Technology well I don't want to spend time fighting yeah while you're pulling that up Paul I'll just say right to your point to the
point of people saying no to everything or not wanting us to comply I think I don't my position is that that's a decision if discussions about Ram assuming the state of middleberg is suing the state I
think that's a decision for the select board to choose I think our job as a board is to act as if we need to present this at town meeting and get it approved um and if the select Bo makes the decision to pursue alternate actions
then we could they'll be part of that process with us so there we go I see it right now full spe and I'm go back I know so um so this first slide I think you guys have seen before by point out not
increasing the multif family footprint in Norton we're just not in a position to do that um we need to avoid it we also need to retain our valuable commercial land infrastructure especially the prime SS and encourage and facilitate actual commercial and
retail business um we we need to get regain that balance um that's what I commented next thing we have the imbalance puts a lot of expenses on the back of our homeowners you see whenever we need more money it's coming up to increasing taxes on residents we just again we do not have the balance of
commercial to B for what we're trying to do to be a town um and then the final thing we need to fully comply with the state mandate I realize a lot of states are fighting this and they've got some pretty good arguments I would like to be
on the sidelines for that that's my opinion let that be someone else's fight so I'd like to comply fully with it in a way that is highly unlikely any of this gets built and I think that's our best scenari we comply we keep our grants and
um we've complied in a way where there's challenges to building it that are just going to they're going to be showstoppers and I'll get into with that is a little bit in that case we are basically watching this whole fight the other towns are having on the news you know mildly interested but Norton's not
spending money fighting we're not losing grants it really just kind of keeps our noses clean keeps let us live in peace so that's what that does okay than um and so this is what this
suggestion does do um we could certainly shade it some because it's up to 57 Acres you can see a little spot off on the left Edge there we could shave that in if we wanted to this is Redmill Village and East M Apartments combined
um East Main compart Apartments is fairly new in the big picture that's reasonably new development these are filled units um the value of that asset makes a prohibitive to purchase it and replace it with something else um that
what they want to do would not make the money so it's just financially not feasible and that's the real thing that is going to stop folks from doing it Redmill Village is even tougher for for them like we just covered it's an all or nothing these are individually owned you have to sell every single person there
to say yes I want to do this or it's you you can't get it all and so what this will do is make Norton compliant it saves us the grants we're we're keeping we're not losing anything and I will remind this town does not
have money to burn we're running on the edge there so not losing the grants would be better I'm sorry Debbie it keeps the Elm Street Grant I for oh you do now
okay that down um but um I think we should look to keep the grants and I think all these fights I'm reading in the news I think the towns have some good fight good points and all but I would rather just not be involved and I think that's better for Norton to just
not be involved and stand to one side I also think this as I set up in that first slide has maybe a 40% chance at Best of Getting By the town because of all those people that want to just vote no with those further
consideration I think the only possible way we're going to get them is if we can sell them on the idea that and we've got a plane here that nothing's going to happen and for this reason we don't worry about the school distribution because ain't going to happen we don't worry about I think I heard some concerns about traffic we don't care it
ain't going to happen and I do think that is the way we need to approach this so that we have complied with the letter of what they've done but it ain't going to happen really we're not not going to take on this extra expense on our town yeah I think it's a it's a wellth
thought out proposal Rob I think it's that's one of the things that we'll look as we go through this I think we haven't talked to anybody Redmill I think just got their notice so they'll be at our next meeting okay um probably with at least a couple of Representatives to speak to it a couple
been to uh one too many meetings where somebody said this will never I was told this would never get built to promise anything um similar to what you're saying like on Twee and things oh it'll never get built because of the sewer but I do Mr chairman believe this
to be a stronger never get build puzzle and we can evaluate yeah I think I mentioned as you were getting the power point up I think the decision on what the whether the town looks to follow them in Middleboro I think that's something that the select board will
have to weigh is part of their kind of responsibilities our job is to get this to where we think it can go to town meeting I I like to be I think I'm more optimistic than the 40% you're going with but uh I had a good cup of coffee today so well I think you know
other things I do where I hear a lot of feedback yeah and a lot of people people had suggested I'm wasting my time even trying to bring this could we get a buildout done for this property cuz it does look like there's a decent portion of it that's not Wetlands or
conservation yeah in wonder how many buildings could actually get but I think that was all factored into their calculations but sure if they're allowed 600 and something more units they can can fit in a decent building there they probably will but just I'd like to see
that build you know it's a Condominium Association and with anything else it's the property owners desires what they'd like to do with it I'll I'll see if I can break down more on that thank you anything that starts costing more more money can ultimately
end to add to um or lead to tax increases you we just got by the override thing before we're doing Cuts now if our expenses go up we're going to be back at the well for that again um I don't think we will do well it won't be
re received so I don't I think it's Madness for us to go down any path I'm sorry you know Massachusetts or or anything that's going to take on additional expense and burden on the town right now and if did take it on it would manifest itself a tax rate
increase and I'll point out for residents of Red Mill I know they're not exactly the worest people on Earth but still a lot of them are living fixed incomes they don't want to see that margin cut at all don't worry about going bankrupt but you
know I see one second I was going to say any additional comments on we don't not going to vote on anything initial comments on parcel specific from the board here otherwise I'll go to public comment my only question is we don't know how many people actually live in
red Bill do we do we you say something unit I think it was 150 something on units some of them are probably multiple person units I'm sure we could I'm sure we could get a number if we wanted to but obviously there is
no school district burden from that area correct right in fact they're they've age limited people under 18 you not with certain exceptions so there's essentially no children there but single if you know single
person or couple you know I don't know but it's it's 156 units yeah but also when we do it by acreage it's 57.9 Acres there may be some aspects of the parcels that that's what the serp analis
to keep us on track trust their compliance modeling based on what the states we'll hear their model we'll hear what they have to say um so please hi ber Car Oak Street I have a question I don't know if it would be more helpful for you to bring up the
slides but um a lot of people in town I think based on what the previous town meeting comments and all the Forum comments um what I'm seeing I feel like is people stuck on the 750 like new units but you guys collectively as a Bor
have been talking about making the net new like significantly less with the exception of f mil which I think was just brought for tonight but like before tonight I feel like the net numbers were like significantly lower than 750 so I just wanted to know if we can clarify
that I guess the net new has always been previous time meeting there was nothing on the site so everything was net new so when we've looked at all of these we've had columns
for okay you have 50 acres times whatever it's this many units there are this many already so there's a net calculation going into all of them yeah okay thank you I just want to point out too when we talk about how many units here these units are individual houses where if
somebody start building multif family on it you're going to get a lot more units for there and that's why you know when you 7.98 Cas you do follow within their calculation yeah so I see two other comments here if we have additional comments on uh the zoom meeting I'll ask people to raise their
virtual hands as well so if somebody wants to come up in person and then I'll go back to the zoom meeting after that I see you Mr SE I'll get you you next uh Zach till us three return Drive did I misunderstand that Mr uh
dpp's slide he said just Redmill Village would make you compliant is that correct yes so why would we go any more what Rob Mr Walsh uh has up there and extend it to the apartments if if Redmill Village
makes you compli it I I agree my own calculation did not say it did but if I was mistaken in that calculation I would agree with your point why add to it because I am looking to the NOS well and just want to add we were looking at these other sites too because some of
those sites were were recommended by the public through some public engagement as well so the board in the next week and in fact with the joint meeting with with finance committee and select board all be making recommendations on
the areas to choose so right now it's still open as to the areas that are you know that are still under consideration okay thank you again I was going to go to the zoom meeting and then Mr seagull if you
wanted just to say your name and address for the record please sure Oren seagull 28 cotting Road um I thought this meeting was going to be dealing with the byw itself um I'm happy to try to get into the
specific okay well a couple of things that was stated that are incorrect one Village by itself is 51 Acres 18 of which is conservation land so by itself would not qualify two uh East Main Street um is a 40b
project um we fought with the help of actually um Bob Kimble uh and we got them to reduce the the heights of the buildings along East Main Street reducing their site by 44 units were
this to become uh a MBTA project they would have the ability to increase and build back those 44 units cost but again those are rental units and they could do that over time and they could increase that by those 44
units the other thing that that um I think the town needs to understand is for all of those other sites it's in most cases making them compliant but they're not compliant um noron Glen as you all know is basically a 50-year-old
project and for us to sit there and say let's not give them some incentive to make them them come into the into current century and and improve their their site while adding granted some some students um I think is is a missed opportunity for this town and we get
focused so much on trying to accommodate commercial and retail space yet this board basically let uh the developer on Glen Street walk away from the idea of putting up retail space and so you keep on being focused on getting more retail
into the town and then say well we don't need it there um if you look at all the sites you're looking at um Mansfield would become compliant Glenville um Glenn would become compliant uh East Main Street would
become compliant right right now it's a 40b project where become compliant they're looking at just this this site and of all of them we're the ones that that have no issue with gaining anything by this and in fact you got to understand it's right now it's it's a 55
andov community and if you wrap around this the ability of putting another project that's multif family we have to be selling our units and somebody buying our unit having that as a backdrop is going to in is it going to affect the value of our property in terms of being
able to resell it you may not that's the case but that is true also you need to stand by a uh by a vote by a vote of the association we can remove the 505 overa restriction right now the Redmill
Village has uh 72 three-bedroom apartment three-bedroom units and 80 two-bedroom apartments more than half of the units are um multif Family by themselves there're two and three three and four bedroom um units attached there
are a couple of Standalone units but there are more than I think half of the units are attached units and will they in some way to be able to accommodate um switching over to to multif family and qualify under this byw
or some amendment to it or some reason for it you would be adding by a vote of our our our our organization um 150 units with multif family
housing um that you can say that would never happen but I would just caution everybody uh given our current Administration I don't know whether you're going to be able to guarantee Social Security is going to be there Medicare is going to be there or or medic care is going to be there and
if that were the case the value of our the ability of our our community to sell our units and to uh e to um reseller units or to find other people coming down the road might diminish and so
converting if we can and I'm not sure we can at this point but converting as I said to multif family would not be beyond the scope of what could happen uh basically of all the other all the other locations everybody anybody everybody
else benefits by this we're the only ones that don't benefit by it and not only don't we benefit by it by having it as an underlying overlay District we may in fact discourage people from buying our units and that's that would be a crime that really would be and
so and so I would encourage this board to reconsider its approach I think you're taking the easy way out basically you have a lot of opportunity to actually in in in an appropriate way de this community you've got the long units
not all of them on on on Mansfield Avenue could benefit by by by the ability to uh uh increase increase their lot size the owners themselves can benefit financially by being able to utilize some of that without a major
impact on the town and and I get tired of hearing it you know it costs X for a student and we get y from taxes you know what this town has never increased its tax base and I'm going to just tell this town speak myself if I were trying to
look as if I had any looking to come to this town and I see them every year reducing the school budget and the the number of of of faculty in the school by 20 a year and by closing a fire department and by closing the ambulance
and the police department you're you're not even going to get you know you're never going to keep this town alive with vibrant new people the young people in school populations dwindling so for you to you know to come back back and say well let's find the let's find the least
likely to do it and the most likely to be impacted by that decision negatively and let's put it all on them is just just really sad for this town you're also looking the two things you're looking at in terms of Glenville Avenue and East Main Street they're both rental
properties so you're picking the big three on our side of this on our side of 495 that have mostly rental people who don't respond to anything and a a a situation where the it's housing senior residents good look guys it's a real good look for this town and I would
encourage you to reconsider the approach that you're taking when you're including red real Village because I think the people will be will be opposed will be will'll be upset with with that decision because I think it really speaks very poorly for that town thank you I understand your comments and your
thoughts and I I know that this wasn't the this is uh all of the notices just came out and they'll be noticed at our next session and definitely be more comments and discussion I think everybody in the board has different feelings about how we're look going about different aspects of this so I
appreciate your thoughts thank you thank you speak sure okay Mr chair um so Orin um I want to stress again and you seem to know that because you were commenting on how we picked the place where it
would just wouldn't get built that is correct that's exactly what we're doing and most of the objections you just rais would pertain if it was getting built but it's not so um I think I think we can get into the logistics of how it may or may not
happen a little bit more because can I finish though please thank you um so no it it's not going to get built now as far as that creating a lot of those problems you think it's creating it would only create those problems if it
got built or even started getting built so um I encourage you to consider that um as far as handing this hang over I mean we've been talking about putting it lots of places it's been fine it seems like specifically affecting the Red Mill
Village residence seems to trouble you more than other places of town that sub he's he's a resident of R Village oh okay fair enough yeah fair fair enough I just knew that that one really triggered a whole bunch of objections that didn't exist
over other places or in ing people in other places but the thing is when it's not getting built you're not getting impacted and the impact you got to worry about especially if you have people on fixed incomes I know you guys have maybe good budgets you're better off but still
fixed is fixed and um if this town has to increased taxes that impacts you this is this makes you the master of your own fate if you realize that you want it there and I don't know how to tell that to you any more clearly than that but you actually wanted on Redmill Village
because that gives you that ability I think everybody could come to their own conclusions and right but I get to speak thank you very much yes so I think I think that we're good proun please so
um I think personally a problem telling other people how they need to think so that would be okay but it was correct I don't have a problem with it just to be clear Mr thank you Miss Winston did you want any
comments I please bear with me Mo nearly died Thursday night she's had a but I have questions Mr chairman one I want to I want to comment in thank you for
coming around from 1,700 units to 750 two for complimenting Rob because he singlehandedly stopped the 1700 units down to 750 I know you don't like it Rob but the facts are the facts so it's very
nice to see the board have reason because I kept hearing you say we worked on this a year we worked on this a year a year and a half I don't understand why sites that are unlikely to be built
or weren't considered in the first place so that speaks to leadership so un questioning that number one and the only reason this number two comes up is because of that number one
it it concerns me Gravely that this board is going to make yet another mistake and not present it at town meeting where it's UNL likely to be built Orin that's why Red Mill is in the
mix and it's very disheartening I'm sure you weren't out there fighting for all of Elm Street not to be built which leads me to the third point if you bring a buildable lot to town me it it's going to go down Dead on
Arrival and that means we lose the grant for 47 Elm Street that's over $3 million it doesn't why would we do that so so just for clarification that 3 and A5 million
wouldn't be affected by us being not compliant we have confirmation from the state really yeah so that's changed PA no gr's going forward Debbie it's the past ones do work it's future ones that wouldn't de oh really yeah Debbie we
were previously told that but apparently it's not true just we can move on told that we can move this speaks to leadership and and the other woman who is talking we want
our old town okay there has to be a way to balance it all no so I plead with the board be smart with what you bring to the town meeting I'm on Elm Street I would like
47 to be taken care of or just like you I don't want to be forced to do something I ask that we let's not call out people by name let's okay I guess that's it thank you thank you Mr Sweeney
yeah I'll do another call for anybody else who's on the zoom meeting who'd like to speak please use the react function to raise your hands please tell me where I can stick mark4 Laing what is the net the net for um for El Redmill
Village is around 600 and what about with East Maine are we at eight like if you add East Main in theory from the compliance model Red Mill itself meets the requirement for MBTA by itself correct in theory on
paper we have't again Village net residents were just noticed they're not here this evening it's over 7:50 yes all right so if we go laa was saying you know a little push back yeah we push back or Rob pushed back very you know as Debbie said on
1500 I don't think we're going to push back it's 800 or something like that it's just a matter of where we put it that's the important thing I think as Rob I can say I don't really want to be sing it about like that we're we're boor sorry me over to the third no
I know I appreciate the f um thank you so I'm the guy that's going to basically tell you no at the meeting you know what I I can just see where it's going the vibe of the town and just what's going on it's going to be a no your job is to
put something there that is not going to be built you might get a yes and then we'll be compliant we'll have the grants or we it's going to be me uh Middleboro in Ram in Norton that's the way it's going to be we may not officially sue
the town but we chances are we are not going to vote for it the spring so you want to put it something there that this board all agrees to such as option three such as Redmill East Main however you want to look at it right there is one of
your members presented earlier tonight did a very fine job by the way and at least give tell the tell the people there this is what we're offering this is what we came up with we did our job and I no that's what you have to do you
have to present something it's not going to be built tell them it's not going to be built it's option three it's not going to be built then you might get a bunch of people that say okay I'll vote for it but it's actually kind of like a no vote you know what I'm saying it's you're voting for something that's not
going to happen and you'll get it past you won't have to be part of Middleboro and R them but if you present something that is not uniformed you probably should do it 70 that type of thing and uniformly you know be unanimous and vote for something that the town is not going
to go forward where nobody no developer going to go forward with then you'll get a yes from you could get a yes from the from the people I guess you want to say and have the vibe switch to your side if you want to say it vote vote Yes here because it's going to be a no in the end
they're not going to build it um and I'm sorry about if that it's not the best thing that for for the gentleman that was speaking earlier from outside of the the uh the town hall here but I just think you have to vote again repeat myself
just vote option three and you'll have a chance of it passing and we won't have to find out go down that road of lawsuits or whatever or be you know lose the grants which we don't want to lose especially if they're
fire grants thank you thank you Mr chair yes if I could just weigh in for a second um we held a public hearing where we asked the members of the public to tell us where they wanted it and the 123
495 parcel came in Sixth and I have to call into account that fincom at their last meeting was specifically disparaging us that we were not listening to the
public so I don't understand how we are now at the sixth option of the public being up for discussion we weeks later it's we're in a situation we're damned if we do we're damned if we don't no
matter what we pick you're going to have an issue with it it's just whichever particular issue happens to fit with your narrative I think that I think if there was an easy choice to make we would have made it yeah and I think that no matter what
we what this board puts forward there will be people in town who disagree with our choices literally damned if we that's why we're on the board to make those decisions as best but I take objection to people on other boards who
have not shown up here saying that we are not listening to members of the public we had a specific hearing for this exact purpose where they were ranked choice no it's it's not and right now we're not list if we
go with option number six we are technically not listening to the public not true no I think I understand your point laa there's we all had the ability to we all had the ability to nominate Parcels to be noticed as part of this process
and that's what we're doing and we'll continue and all the notices go out we'll have all those owners and abuts able to be at our next meeting to refine that selection further um i' like to speak so
that's yeah no I understand I I I just take objection to people saying we're not listening to the public we've been doing this for weeks listening to the public and the public keeps wavering on where they want this thing that and that's why I started turning
off social media so I'm talking about just in this meeting alone in open meeting so I understand um so I would like to say something if possible go in the I'll come back to you and there's a hand on the zoom meeting as well so
we're just coming around again so when first given this task I was in full support of trying to find the least likely place they would actually develop but I'm not going to feel comfortable looking at any Resident in town and giving them a guarantee that nothing's
going to be built I won't do that I'm trying to state that I don't want it I'll try to vote for a place that's unlikely but I'm not going to throw out I if something does happen and something does change I'm not going to be tied to the fact that I told the public this
won't be built I won't guarantee that like it's irresponsible for anyone to say that it cannot be built thank you rob did you have something else that you wanted to add did you have something else yeah um first of all Jim is right we do not
want to make a promise it won't get buil be built and so we want to always phrase that high likelihood won't be built or in my case what I've said is here's the obstacles that I personally believe nobody will get over for it to be built so um I do agree with this point and we
should watch our language but um yeah that is where it is now um as far as the comments about listening to the public if we listen to the public we actually just throw this out and go to town media with nothing because that is what most of the public is saying right
now they just don't want it um what I'm trying to put forth here is a plan to possibly sell something to the public to make us compant I don't know that it'll work I when I gave it 40% I think even what I suggested is going to get voted down I do know
there's people here in this room that have already told me I'm nuts and that we're just going down um so um that is how we got to this it was by listening to the public it was not by rejecting him they aren't so much
picky as where we put it as long as they just don't want it to happen putting nowhere is actually their first choice I'm trying to dissuade the public off of putting it nowhere thank you m car brid arog street
uh I've seen a lot of the public saying the no thing but I also think there's probably a good portion of the public who um is in agreement with this board which is pretty much an agreement I think from all of your for forums and other meetings where you're all trying to do the same thing I feel like a lot
of times you guys get stuck here and it's a lot of back and forth and run around the same Circle um so I just want to voice that there are other people who have different opinions than that um and I would also have a question about how going back
to ca on the stre um man LA and The Glen how many net units is that again I just can't remember um it's I say the total I want say the Nets I'm going to say it's about 500
yeah uh combined yes please um so combined their 57 acres and again the model units are 824 so that puts us over the the net is the net from oh the Nets I'm sorry the
nets for uh Mansfield that would be again about a 313 unit net increase though again most of this there's one lot that's vacant and that number is going to be you know I have to be cautious to say but this is not vacant land right it's
occupied land with existing multif family I believe that was no it's okay that was the big Contender from the sport before Redmill got brought back in I just wanted to kind of touch on that again so Norton Glenn is a a net of 193
units okay so combined less than Redmill theoretically theoretically theoretically um the Redevelopment potential of F and yeah so it's like 5:30 I was pretty close yeah yeah so okay all right thank
you um I know Mr Sweeny and Miss Winston are looking to speak I have Mr seagull on the zoom so just going to go to him real quick if you don't mind course or if you want to just uh state your name and address again please sure Orin seagull 28 County Road
just one item to clarify if you look looking at Redmill Village is a standalone again it has 51 Acres 18 of which is conservation land so it by itself I don't believe would qualified because it would only have something like 30 something OD Acres back without
taking parking spaces and the like thank you it's not sufficient yeah sered had sured had run the compliance model on that um so we'll rely on their data on what is is not allowed from conservation perspective in that as we go forward but
thank you their their their their run was both combined with East Main Street and Red Mill we we'll get it broken out okay thank you yeah I was shocked to hear that red bill would meet it on its own my own calculations didn't come up with
that we'll confirm that before the next meeting mark4 Laur I'd like to speak to your member that was talking about listening to the public I was here for that Workshop um and I
picked I think I picked weaton I picked barrows cuz one of your members was like Hey this s this is a good idea this is a good Weeden Barrels in uh 140 Manfield F on the if you want to call it on the duplex side and I said
well those will be good especially I was thinking that this thing would go to barrels actually but then F the conversations cuz when was that workshop two months ago something like that December December even yeah okay thank you P so it's it's before Christmas yeah
yeah okay so three months ago but in the meantime discussions with people um you know he was just talking it over with different people and Red Mill looked like even a better because again you can't again you can't just
sorry one of the members said don't we won't promise again yeah you can't promise it but it's highly unlikely that it will happen so what I picked those three earlier back in December throw them out the window I'm going with Redmill so yes things do change over the
last 3 months yeah I was one of those I didn't like it didn't care Redmill that's stupid idea now it's probably the number one idea but things change after three months it's yeah it's our job as a board to take into account what we've heard over the last year and a half of
this and sze it into how we vote as we move forward right thank you Mr chairman I was going to go to debb okay I'll speak to the same issue the woman who brought up the concern about the public
was the one at that meeting trying to persuade everybody not once but twice she directly lied to me and this board put forth that we would lose that $3
million for Elm Street so don't tell me that if the board votes for a number one Red Mill that the public isn't being heard be honest and the citizens have a right to know that a member of the board
did that and lies directly to people's faces thank you Mr shair I think she gets to go next yes M part may I share something that's posted
publicly um can I ask what it is yeah uh it's the president's report on their financial statement for 2024 college for Wheaten College okay um we didn't notice weaton we haven't
included in their selection I'm taking objection with being called a liar I understand um I have informed them it is public acknowledge if they don't want to look for it I feel like I need to point it out Mr chair I'll I'll please I'll
I'll allow you to share it but I just I understand where you're coming from no but then I'd like to move on and continue discussion about the bylaw we not have discussions we will not have argumented discussions members of the
board in this forum please miss Winston thank you In fairness I think she should get to respond I'm asking M yes as said La if you'd like to share it you can and then I'd like to move on okay we covered it a previous session one moment
please oh I can't here we go apologies take your time I got it I'm not in a rush okay this is Wheaten College this is the letter from the vice president for finance and administration for fiscal
year 2024 this is on their web page one two third paragraph down Weeden ended the year with an unrestricted operating deficit of $8.5 million which was a43 Million favorable change over the
prior year which means they had an operating deficit of another $8 million which is why they started selling properties so I was trying to point out that
a institution that is having financial difficulty and has already been selling properties they may not be the most ideal to put in here because they could very likely be put up for sale because three of the parcels that they did sell
two of them went to residential housing developers two of which came before us so I I don't know what lies you are referring to I've referred people to the public website and their financials which are online so thank you and I await my
apology for calling me a liar please thank you that wasn't the only reason you were called we're going to we're going to move on I'm sorry for it you deserve we're going to move on thank you okay so so I think we've covered review of the parcels are there any additional
clarifying questions that we want to get from Paul or sered other than breaking out Redmill and East m in the analysis prior to our next session I sort of like to point out that since we has been disqualified for other reasons
anyhow that we never have to break it up in these me discussions we have in any context it's a good point Ro I I really just want the bottom line number what's the lowest net increase that we can put forward and that's my biggest factor and
I'm going to in okay and I think Paul when you said there's some vacant Lots on the 140 side we could even shave the vacant Lots out of what we're putting forth for the town to even limit that even more right if that's the parcels
that we select yes yeah yeah okay so anything else parcel selection yes no otherwise I'll move on he's fine okay okay so moving on from partial selection Paul
you would share it around the language again um again we do not need to vote on this at this point but the bylaw language is another aspect that was discussed heavily in town meeting
um so in terms of changes that we want to see in the bylaw language for this time around I was going to suggest and I know these were well intentioned the previous time um do we want to strike everything
and everything that talks about the density bonuses yes yes yes okay yes it struck I will do this live I understand the intention that we had behind them I understand the amount of thought and effort that we put into
them I think that it is not passible at town meeting given the current discussions that me leaves the maximum height at three stories with no exceptions which I think is generally what we're going to need to do to meet
the density requirements of the bylaw anyway I I have a question about that if we set the height for three stories and it's built in the commercial Zone where this four stories is it restrict my my thought was
to they'd have to choose which zoning they're building under so they're either operating under the existing zoning or they're operating under the over they can't mix and match from both correct correct you pick one should but do we need to include a
maximum height or can it just rely on the underlying District it could just match whatever District it's in since we're creating our dimensional tables I would put a height in I know that's one of the
things what I've lovingly call the spread sheet of Doom of the compliance model right I know height is one of those things that is part of it okay so it takes setbacks and Heights and all of those things and goes okay in this lot
you can build this many so um but I just want to check something on the height standards just so we're clear here cuz just want to see the
height for Village commercials 45 commercials 45 that sounds right so um residential's 35 let me just get to the table so yeah the
heights 65 across the scrolling I'm not seeing a scroll I'm not I'm not sharing that part yet but okay 45 6 with chimneys and domes and spires and Towers Etc right so 45 in
commercial 35 in residential districts a couple of those are in residential uh but again you could even create it so like an if we went to say Mansfield which is commercial you could set a different height if you use
different subdistricts you could also set a different height if you want to do that but yeah 45 and then 65 at the maximum height three stories but they are limited to three stories um for both Village commercial
and Commercial so so again like just we have to put in a height for compliance modeling I think number of stories I think is the it's three stor but if we just leave the height blank it can just match whatever districts it's
in or are we saying if it's in the commercial you lose 10 ft of height by building this kind of top of the shop no cuz they not let's see cuz if you're using the overlay the existing zoning doesn't matter so there's not a maximum
height specified they can go to whatever three stories they want to do right so doesn't matter where they're putting it the only rules that matter are within these Pages not whatever else is going on in the in the commercial zone or anything
else the the overlay doesn't completely negate what's in the underlying District it it just supersedes any settings it it gives it gives the owner an option they can choose one set of rules or the other right right so if for example they wanted to use the overlay District
you'll see in the language which we already had which was if there's any uh conflict between two different zoning districts the the overlay District would supered okay if they chose that provided
they did yeah provided right so basically you take an Avenue you either go with your base zoning or you go with your overlay District it's not a pick shoes yeah yeah so you you could I mean if you wanted to um and depending on how this
all plays out through town meeting one standard might be a good way to go because it might be tough to predict where this ends up in terms of areas selected so um if there's a standard on height or I and I would say
also um lot size we want to look at that yeah um I was going to say that the other piece that we touched on at town meeting was lot size and building size so these the language that that we created previously was designed
generally to encourage somewhat smaller lots and somewhat smaller buildings I agree with that so if that is what we want to put forward and what we want to allow not necessarily someone needs to do it that
way but allow for somebody to build smaller buildings if in fact something was going to be built or if we wanted to the direction and say if you're going to do this can be a big building which is what was proposed to T
meeting on the floor um that makes it maybe a bigger lift to get something done but when something does gets done it's a bigger drop rather than somebody added a couple of
triplexes I I think I'd rather go small I don't think we need to vote on that at this point we're not but just something something to think about as you look through the language as you look through it and think about it um while we're on the dimensional tables
could I ask a question y the maximum building plus parking coverage so buildings with less than 10 units were allowing 70% coverage buildings with more than 10 units were only allowing 60% coverage
and I'm wondering it seems counterintuitive but there's got to be a reason for it because you'd need more parking for more units is that so that the building would be smaller was that the intent my understanding and Paul you can correct me if I'm wrong is that if
you had let's just imagine this as a bigger apartment building where you have a parking lot or a parking underneath the building or one parking area that's dense and you fit all the spots in it if
you compare that to four tow houses you're going to have little bits of driveways and each each per townhouse is going to want its own two and a half spaces and maybe they want an area to put a boat or something like that so you get more potential for somebody wanting
parking with a smaller lot am I I think so potential more open space for a bigger building right that would be the other trade-off would be with the uh reduction you know essentially CU they don't have little yards you can have a
big yard for everybody right okay so think about it as providing a more open space as opposed to restricting their ability to put more parking in yes okay thank you um the other one that I would add
Paul is we put the maximum units per acre at 16 um I'm not sure if we put that at 15 which is the minimum required by the state well remember there that was place there serid recommended 16 just to
create that buffer so it's still a maximum but just because of the numerical I mean we can I can ask them to take a look at calculating at 15 that would Theory require us to do
more acreage which might get more people upset six 15 would require could could potentially require more acreage okay 16 leave it alone for now yeah 16 is the buffer they recommended that would help
put us a little bit over and again that is a maximum units right we just need a good answer for that yes and the answer that we just got we just got is what it yeah that on if you want me to set aside more land for
this or not it's a tradeoff yes that's the answer for that Common Sense isn't so common okay did anybody else have discussions on the VW language they wanted to bring up after reviewing
it uh the uses in the top of the shop building yes Paul just scroll past it I think I can barely see right there yeah um I don't really have much of a problem with it but the one thing is the
full full retail and full restaurants if it's in the commercial Zone those things are going to be allowed anyways they would be under the existing zoning and if it's in the residential Zone those uses might be a little too
intense I'm not sure if like a full apple beer or Walmart those would qualify in those uses a Walmart it's just retail okay yeah um in theory you could put a a mini Target
in one of these yes um with a maximum height yeah I would have a CH I guess in theory it's hard to distinguish between in terms of a restaurant how do you determine between well we have Artisan food how do you determine between
Tasties and as we said an Applebees beverage I think is our distinction I don't think tasty qualify though small I don't know it's tough minimal production I think but I think also if they wanted a liquor license they'd need to go before the select
board and need to show how they weren't going to come a new sure I'll point out also Apple be's is probably not going to want to get involved in that type of location probably not that would be a big change from Walmart's business model too yeah the
idea is the theory that there's no limit there it's a good Devil's Advocate discuss uh those are the only two that I'm sort of wavering where if we made this District without those uses on there and then amended it at a later meeting to make those by special permit
or something and that's the uh the commercial food use yeah just just the the full retail use and the full restaurant you nightclub use yeah that might be too intense and it's already allowed in the commercial so if it's placed there they can build
that building anyways so I just want to make sure I'm clear what I can remove if the board wants me to do so I think the the commercial under commercial food
use I think I think the discussion is do we want to restrict some of that um I think I want to think on it more if you don't mind yeah I don't mind at all but I'm just those are the two that stand out as like
possible what are you using for refer though that's tough we don't have a you'd have to put in a square footage threshold if you wanted to do something like that it's the only way to limit it well that's why I sort of I went with like more like a a smaller boutique
style thing a little like they have the Artisan man you have to give this you have to think of the building inspector interpreting this chart though and not us interpreting it right you know what I'm saying it has to be sure some type of definitive could we maybe I like to use myself as The Idiot for The Idiot
Test yeah that I mean can we limit the retail space to like you know a certain square footage or the restaurants like whatever commercial use is limited to certain what capacity yeah um then we're getting really in the
weeds with it but that's but then you have to do then you have to imagine what the size of the building is going to be so it's I think there are points I forget if they made it in the final version we talked about how much retail you could have we did um so that's I think maybe the where look at that so I
feel like I wouldn't want to limit any commercial use well U all top of the shop and mixed use developments must have at least 50% of the projects grow square footage dedicated to residential uses and I think the first floor is limited to has to be is at least
65% do do we need those percentages do we want to require at least 50% residential like I think it need I think it needed to be why do we want to mandate any percentage residential cuz it's top of the shop well multi family
could they build like 10,000 ft of space in just one unit and like why do we need it to be 50% of the whole building I feel like there are requirements into three 3A where it needed to be residential I forget we have to allow well it's allow multif
family by right allow but not require I think you're right we don't need to require a certain percentage of residential space well if they only want to use 25% of the building as residential or let's let them which helps our number well it
doesn't help a number if if it's 80% in the commercial space the number on paper is the same on paper that's the only number we have yeah so the number on paper stays the same right um no but I think and the likelihood that you're going to do more on the residential on
is much higher than the commercial commercial real estates everywhere like right now I would just say Paul if we can just make sure if there's a requirement under 3A that like that forces us to do something in terms of how we treat residential in
these properties um that we just make sure we're complying with that um while we're in the used table one of the I do see your hand up oring I'll get there in a second um and I think Steve this was a comment you had um provided in
beforehand I just want to make sure you know that we resolve that which was with top of the shop housing and we initially in our draft had mixed use development as well and Stephen correct me if I'm wrong but were you proposing
deleting mixed use development or no clarifying clar okay what the difference mixed use says that the residential use has to be above a commercial uh sorry the top of the shop says uh residential has to be of commercial where mixed use would
stipulate that it could be a range in any format doesn't necessarily have to be above or below right right correct but we don't have that definition written anywhere so that's why I'm not sure where we're unless we're adding it to just here to say that the definition
is that it can be yeah like the back of the building can be multifilm and the front can be commercial but same amount of stories not NE above or below each other to see in the definitions did we did we I have nothing against the idea but I
just need to clarify okay there is a definition of mixed use yeah just I mean honestly my opinion I'm all is like why don't we scrap most of this used table use the underlying zoning
that's already there and then just maybe have small use Cas use cases that we want for specifically for what we would want in a residential area that's exactly what I tried to make that's not my table I sent another draft and it's
it's written there Prett that's where I'm going with this discussion that's kind of where I'm like let's simplify it like honestly this should probably be as simple as possible make it digestable as possible so that's kind of not that we should make any big changes now but just let you know that's kind of where my
mind is now going to with with the current discussion yeah I think part of the reason that we built all this out is that if you do some commercial use along with the residential use it's more revenue for the town all right and that's why we had specified it out in all of the previous
ones um in that trying to encourage other things other than just departments Paul is there any way you can bring out the email I sent you today with guys the cross talk while we're Mr chair I do Steve if I understand
correctly you're say you have a suggestion for simplifying you'd like to present to yeah I just as I just I'd like to make sure Steve gets this chance to present he's got something put together want to get the chance all right Paul while you're pulling that
that up or did you want to make a specific comment to the bylaw language um I'm not sure if is the board this questions on what they want they didn't have I I have a question two things one um this schedule abuses is this something we developed or is that
something we got formatted from somewhere else in terms of what we're using and thisor specific to the the overlay yeah um I believe this is something that we developed with sered I
don't think it was taken from anywhere else this is sort of hodg podged back from serid this was their suggestion and then edited again okay two two things one
um allowing various commercial uses without a special permit uh especially affected in the case of Norton Glenn and renal Village which is partially a residential 80 uh seems really right now the only the only place that I see this
even being relative is Mansfield Avenue I mean commercial having any kind of commercial at Glen at the Norton Glenn or red Village or East Main Street is just doesn't work I don't know who's thinking about it but even top of the house stuff is really not relevant I
mean a mainfield UE may be the only location I I don't know someone mentioned that they they may be able to make a a use differential subdivision and that's fine um but to incorporate that into a residential area where you're talking about nightclubs and uh
health clubs and fraternal lodges and country clubs a res area is just counter to the everything in our bylaws and I don't know why we tend to do that especially when there's no likelihood that those things would would be appropriate the other thing was
even if you're doing that even let's say in Mansfield or someplace that's close to other retail operations on the first floor you've got nightclubs small scale indoor Recreation uh recreational camps health clubs I don't want to live above
those things you want to have someone living above a nightclub I don't know where these things came from to make any relevance certainly if you want you know a top of the shop a retail operation that's fine you know restaurants get a little dicy in terms of it's how much cooking they're doing and fire and the
like over a residential area so so those things may make sense in the appropriate place but they're going so far overboard with these things it doesn't make any sense and then you have any floor not just the first floor fraternal Lodge Country Club administ trated
professional officers Conference Center um with 50% dedicated to the residential use the question I was read reading through this I don't know whether the sttion requires any percentage of multi
family units but I did look at 72.0 51 c2d and I'm not sure whether that's relevant I think that goes to um it says something about trying to using it as resing the the unit capacity needed for multi family District where and it says
one the multi-use district zoning is is in an eligible location where existing Village style or downtown developments is essentially to preserve The Pedestrian access uh to amenities It
also says indeed the requirement for non-residential uses is limited to the ground floor buildings new case represents a requirement that more than 33 and 30 uh 30 3% of the floor area of the building ladder project must be for
non-residential uses so I'm not sure whether this applies but it would look like it would be limited to the first floor and I don't know why we're going and expanding this to multiple floors because it looks like it's not St it doesn't seem like you talking about
allowing any Standalone operation so it's not like you can put a a store next to this multif family house right now it has to be ground Flor but I don't know why having any I understand what you're saying yeah no I think I I would say I appreciate your
comments I think we're still definitely kind of looking at this as I think we spent a lot of time on Parcels I think we haven't looked at this language a lot over the past three or four months so that's really what we're diving into now um so I don't
think I would view this as finished U I think it's still a work in progress but I think in the right place there is a play a way for restaurants and residential to work together I mean you look at Kelly's place or something like that where it
makes sense um is there work to do on refining this table I would say yes ask a question do we need to know the space that we're picking before we do this then wouldn't that make our jobs easier it's because I think that we need
to have might make some sense kind a little bit of in parallel which is not ideal for understand what you're saying yes I mean specifically uses the bylaws yeah I agree we could probably you know fine-tune them but in terms of uses if
we're going to try and identify exactly what we want there I feel like we need to know where it's going to go yeah yeah we can yeah we can leave it as we definitely want to have that in mind when we make the
final vote on this yes agree um rob you had a comment that he wanted to raise yeah I was going to talk on you know the usually the top of the the shop and stuff and there was an ask us what was the reasoning behind that and because that opens us up to
nightclubs and the thing um the what the reasoning was and I was probably the guy that perve this a little bit um when I originally suggested um The Glenn I had pointed out the top of the shop actually might be nice over there
because um having some convenience stores and I was picturing were small things like that I certainly wasn't picturing a Walmart or strip club um but um you know and because that's a little bit like no man's laying over that way
and I thought that would actually be a nice thing for the residents to kind of have something in that area cuz they tend to have to drive all the way back up into town for a lot of things basically of The Interchange yeah yeah so um that was the vision and I also had a philosophy at the beginning this is
why my songs changed a little changed somewhat is I wanted to thank Norton first but I didn't want to just say but I don't you know if we could still get something for Norton out of it I wasn't adverse to giving something to the state too letting them have a little bit I I really wasn't approaching this as a
stick the state like a you I think outside this room we have a lot of folks thinking that way so I had made some suggestions like that I think that's where you heard heard those things and that's what they were based on um was picturing more like just a little bit of a village type thing over there that
could service not just the residents there but people that are at that end of Norton because they they're driving into East or back into Norton a lot for a lot of things so that just to tell you what the thinking was Paul you've had this up for a few
minutes Steve did you want to just cover what you have here sure Paul can you scroll up just I'm sorry oops wrong one we have to travel up 106 123 there's two parts of this I guess it's what's permitted in the district and then what would be permitted within
a top of the shop development so the first list is just what would be permitted in the development uh doesn't have to be at top of the shop just anywhere within the district and my theory on that was we want to add in very minor commercial uses uh they by
right so we want to be very particular about which ones we add there and they should be compatible with a residential Zone not necessarily commercial Zone uh if this District goes over a commercial Zone it will get the extra commercial uses if it's put on a residential Zone
it's only going to get these limitations very minimal amounts um that's why I didn't include the full restaurant nightclub and retail options uh for the top of the shop housing if you go down a little bit you have the any floor and ground floor uses
I added the Fraternal Lodge and the nonprofits up top like a fraternal Lodge that could be a sority or a fraternity but whatever for Wheaten College the nonprofit membership home uh health or Rec Club whatever Country Club under federal law that includes like
homeowners associations hobby clubs any sort of meeting thing a dinner Club uh so from my I feel like those are fair in a in a building uh if they have a a conference area or whatever they want get
togethers and again entertainment below a little bit to do something to do little shops boutiques maybe teaching crafts a little bit of food okay that's it why no Services why no personal
services it's lumped into together we have retail General services and Trade Services if we add that category it's full retail it could be a Walmart could be a plumber we don't have beauty salon beauty salon is a personal service
it's combined in one category under the new bylaws we have three categories of service trade personal and general that is not what our current bylaw is the proposed one is though we can't zone for that it doesn't
exist yet well I mean like and and we do have BRS a great point because the way it's going to be structured at town meeting the recodification is going to be early in the zoning process so we should be factoring it that will be
approved and so we should be basing this on the so it doesn't have to be a right that's why all the citations are for the current yeah new that's why I changed all the sites so in the new code as we wrote it like just literally last night
the day before whatever does it say personal services General services and Trade Services correct so that would be like a beauty shop a barber a plumber a repair shop that's all one category it's not divided but they are currently
divided so it under they are not currently divided they exist as one in our current code and we've split it into two categories which is just retail and then services but it's anywhere from beauty shop to plumber right but a service
establishment is broken into three categories personal trade and general where under the definitions not in our usage table it is in our uses table show me
where it's divided in our uses table we're going to get to that in the next section yeah I don't um so there's a question of a have make sure that like let's look at
this at Steve's suggestion here as a simplification I guess do you think that's accurate or not sure I think it's fairly saw I saw your W so you're not looking at as a simplification I mean it's as simple as like could I mean you could remove the top of the shop thing you could just remove it like all the
extra uses in there you could just say any allowed residential that's there in the underlying district and any allowed commercial that's in the underlying and make that the top of the no but that's this is about as simple as I think it it really gets other than removing any extra use besides multi family
and Paul there's nothing in the regulations that would say we necessarily have to allow commercial by right correct not by right again it's strictly multif family has to be by right everything else is just add-on so we would have the
potential if we wanted to not to allow top of the shop by right I would say top of the shop by permit I would not want to do that though top of the shop should exist we want it we absolutely want any amount of commercial use under a multif family don't don't let's not go to
special permits on any of this no special perm to cuz that requires a higher vote right it does yeah and that gets kicked out of this yes this is that's why I tried to simple it down to only the things we could do by right which well what would be palatable by
right okay and that's any of those OP are for discussion okay so I would say to everybody let's take a look at this take a look at the existing take a look at Steve's suggestion and we need to
have comments additional suggestions um Eric anything else that you wanted to add no just thinking out loud because like like said this is kind of this is kind of going in the direction I was thinking I was just I was just splitting out loud like the changes I might make but I me that be
for next time okay are there any other sections of the bylaw that we want to review this evening I think Eric you're looking at this as a let's strip it way way down yeah so basically like since these
overlays will end up being over commercial and residential I would probably just want to strip it down to what would we want to see in the residential area like the top of the shops and whatnot nothing else that's that's how how do the B want to get with us okay so so chair can I just add that
would love to get your comments and writing that way that way I can start incorporating them in there red line preferred Redline preferred or strike through underline but yeah I'm on board with simpler the better okay anything else for this
discussion I'm good for here okay everything else is just I technical I can just shoot my edits okay final item our agenda continue discussion on recodification and we
touched on a little bit already um I will say thank you to Steve and laa for taking on a lot of the reviewing work and going back and forth on different pieces here um Paul did you want to give an update do you think Laur or Steve are
best suited to give the update here La I'm going to give that option to you Paul why you bring up the clean version cuz he marked everything in yellow sorry Mark was going to go through
this um I will pull up my Redline version just here so if we're stuck as to what exactly got changed we have a you can ask me so la just
full what's that it's up there and just from a time check we were at 957 just yeah extra treats before I left I knew this going to be a long okay so Laura what did what
specific sections do you think you want to touch on here Mark was Mark had pointed out in yellow like the areas um I've got one here so non-residential parking 65 hang on
615 okay um we added here in the center um in the event of appeal filing by the applicant the applicant shall prepare a study following the procedures of the it or other procedures deemed acceptable for submitt to the zoning board of appeals it's just to give them a heads
up that they may have to provide additional I like it okay if if it doesn't fit the Building Commissioner can make a call if you don't like his call back it up yep I like it okay just kind of scrolling through Mark needs to finish a few places 1.8 was
unfinished overall we're changing select men to select board building inspector to Building Commissioner that's just kind of General stuff I thought we found and replaced all those like three times and still popping up
it's well he still had inspector as opposed to commissioner yeah that's a new one he is going to take the column out of 6.1 that parking table where it had um including but not limited to these uses he's just striking the entire table
cuz we just had same previously okay um so Laura the next next one that's highlighted I'm almost there are the new Adu requirements okay that's an entirely new on page 73 and that's and
this is basically coming from the new state rules it's state yeah it's the state law so it is a change to what we have but this is a these are very explicit standards and Mark has mirrored
them I like simple and no room for discussion is there any room for discussion okay really then we're done me but I have nothing I could say but yeah it is Laura was there anything else
you had on see where the the we should talk about the use tables cuz there was a somewhat of an overhaul I'm looking just to see Laura as you're looking for that um I do want to mention we we're making one change to the Wetland Protection District oh that
um it didn't have um what I would call opt out language like for example the Water Resource Protection District says if you have a boundary dispute you can get a hydrologist to issue a report and you can accept that report the Wetland
Protection District we're doing something similar to say if you've dispute the boundaries of the W of the of the district because this District was written 50 years ago and wetlands have changed yes and um we've worked with Mark and with John
Thomas the conservation agent we can write it to say that if you have a wetland study conducted by a wetland scientist you could change the boundaries of that District or if you wanted to really go all out delete the
whole section as it's duplicative and causes confusion but I guess I don't mind not your day sure if you don't this is what we have the as the Wetland Protection District if you don't like it show us why it's
wrong yeah just correct the boundaries of it fine John and whoever ends up creating a new map then we'll just replace that and then language will stand so that's fine yep well it's it's never been drawn on a map of legal
descriptions in yes yeah so anyway that's the fix we'll just we'll just go with that language to later too and then um I'll pull up the use table Laur you're on no it's okay I'll bring mine up hang on I do something with regards
to special permit um that I actually did talk to um where are the special permit standards oh oh okay about the um assurity no um which section was special
permit at 6 something nobody's sharing anything right now just yeah I'm scrolling that's fine share landscape standards Steve will there scrolling from your perspective what open items do
we still have to discuss uh the the things that need to be cleaned up in my opinion is which me and Laura have been working on this past week back and forth is uh the final organization of the uses table uh which
would be the order that the uses are laid out in what chart they're part of and then maybe a few tweaks to whether their special permit or not depending on what they are um I tried to eliminate almost every change I had made
previously and holding off you're postponing them postponing yeah they don't all need to be part of this one so yeah we're making a punch list of things to address um parking table still are we leaving the parking table I'm not touching it for now yeah okay that's
a Laur another day 1052 the criteria for special permit for some reason I was thinking that was CLA six so one of the things here there used to be six of these with the sixth one being things that we should consider potential
fiscal impact including impact on Town Services tax base and employment every time Mark has reviewed that with us he keeps saying but don't use that as your primary reason for denial and I feel like that's just
setting us up to fail because 20 years from now nobody is going to remember that Mark told this board that not to use that so I feel like and it might be a difference without a distinction but my
proposal was to remove that from the list of um standards and to put it within the Preamble so that last sentence says in addition to any specific factors that might be set forth by this bylaw we added as well as the potential
fiscal impact on Town Services tax base and and employment the determination shall consider each of the following um so that we can't rely solely you know 20 years from now somebody can't rely on
potential fiscal impact and the state comes back and says you you can't deny it for that reason alone um I like it if we remove the extra and number five because it's no longer now it's the last one got it thank you um the one thing I did have a
question about from a legal standpoint that I was hoping mark would weigh in on here um um there was a suggestion at the very last part of that sentence to say we shall consider um those things currently and in the future um currently
and in the future is the Clause that I'm wondering whether it's legal I have a feeling Mark is going to come back and say you have to look at the scope of the project in front of you and you can't consider the fiscal impact of something 5 years from now and use that as a
clause now says potential fiscal impact so that can be interpreted for next week or next year or next decade okay it's just a I had a question for Mark specifically as to whether we could use that
Clause um so I can follow up with him specifically I just want to make sure we're not leaving ourselves open to any legal issue I don't yeah and if we want to see if we want to add it I don't think it I don't see it moving the needle in terms of how we would look at it
yep I think I would if I was looking to Pro something out the I'm assuming it's okay yeah if I was going to project something out to the future I think the existing language on the screen now would allow me the mental leeway to do that okay fair
enough I agree with their point on exposure refresh my mind when we we told we couldn't consider fiscal impacts that's been it's come up more than once I know but were we told we couldn't Mark said Mark says don't rely that as don't make that your paramet reason
foral couldn't it's more like we can't yeah it's Zer mansfiled have try got their lawyer to write us a letter saying we can't deny it based on that yep is that what I'm thinking of yes but it was the way he put it was you can't deny it for
economic impact but fiscal impact is different than economic impact yeah and he made that distinction and it's been suggested by a of butter for eight years yeah y so that's another reason is it it
gives a Butters a potential reason to appeal um it's just setting us up for more appeal so my feeling was take it out of the standards and just put it in the Preamble so it's something to consider but you can't hang your head on it and it's clear you can't hang your
head on it and we won't refence the the decision I wouldn't because generally we're only going to reference the one standards yeah yes yeah number one would cover any of that if we wanted it to um the other thing that I had
suggested kind of the reverse of this in 1054 um in the Preamble it says say we can put reasonable conditions including performance guarantees um I felt like that was an
important one that probably should be called out specifically so I added it as number 10 requirements to post shity in the form of either a cash or performance Depon da um just so that it would it's belts and suspenders if we're citing pertinent
example conditions I think it's one um and it could get lost in the Preamble no issue okay um so the use table I'll pull mine finalized wow it's it's close it's not
done I'll pull up or unless Paul you've got it already uh I I do okay you're a but the big changes here from our existing use table are structure and
organization yeah yeah all right so hang on I'm going toost it I know I had it I think I'm sorry oh okay I think I was doing I think I was driving okay okay all right so hang on so this
is no additions to why you st there are some there's some modifications cuz I know we had a list going from when I was on zoning board like stuff that was definitely needed all right so so overall the main thing so General where Mark had provided very we
got a ton of new definitions that were very clear very robust and provided a lot of categories where we got a good definition it was put into the use table so and then we put that top line for all
capitalized terms refer to section 11 so that we don't have to get into a lot of detail Within um the table itself people can just simply refer to mobile home go to the definition um the one thing we did here mobile home
used to in our prior table have in parenthesis next to it temporary our current definition allows for temporary and permanent mobile housing so I struck temporary here um the other thing is so he had
provided us with 12 different cat categories one of which was miscellaneous and one was other um neither Steve nor I really liked that so we went through all of the miscellaneous and other and separated them out into
other categories and we've renamed some of the categories um we've actually created a new one but it makes sense when we get there um so our residential uses here um the one thing that we are missing um um so senior housing it says
refer to set 8.3 there's a definition there for long-term care but it is solely applicable to aged uh residents or senior residents we are missing a use definition and um
allowance a spot in the use table for other inor longterm yeah long-term care is for nonaged so rehab treatment centers um Physical Therapy behavioral therapy that sort of thing where there
might be a residential component to it um that is missing and Mark is going to need to we've asked him to you know if he's got a good definition um and Paul had determined it should go into Community facilities um so Community fi facilities
most other towns refer to this as institutional facilities um so it covers kind of a broad spectrum um okay so Public Service public utilities one of the things he provided us a new definition essential services
but we already had public service and Public Utilities so we had him strike his essential services so that we didn't have to go and update the text of the bylaw everywhere um we moved Medical Clinic Medical Centers and Clinics here we move funeral establishments here club or
Lodge private moved here um so existing but moved yep Rehabilitation is going to be a new one um and we're going to need to set the allowances for it but it'll go here as well for the next one we had um it we
used to call it open space Agricultural and outdoor recreational uses we've he had it as simply I think it was just agricultural uses yeah it was just farms in one yeah so we put it back to open space egg and what we're going to call
passive outdoor wreck um for some reason on number one he had removed references to farming um and just left the agriculture um so we put that back in on number two and three he had qualified
the size for some reason um that we didn't know and number one actually already specifies the parcel so it's sort of redundant and it just puts it back the way it was I remember it being redundant there being a reason and yeah me saying
that I didn't feel like arguing the point probably um so we've got um dog kennel daycare vet facilities there certain ones that could fit in multiple categories we just tried to pick the best one because it's involving animals we put it here and then we've got your
um passive Recreation so the area is number nine and then the passive recreation use is number 10 okay um the next category instead of calling it indoor notor W uses it's just recreational
uses um so we've struck what was number three cuz that went under open space um the one thing here that we do need consensus on is small scale indoor Recreation um so we have two different definitions so we always had small SK
Gale indoor Rec creation but it actually allowed quite a bit of things that necessarily were not small scale Mark gave us a new definition for commercial recreational facilities
outdoor um so in talking with Paul we said okay do we want to combine them or separate them and there was a uh feeling that things like music studios dance studios voice lessons that sort of thing
thing um probably are okay small scale and we should probably allow them in residential with a special permit so where we did change one of the allowances and we would like the board's agreement to that is to make smallscale
indoor recreation in residential Allowed by special permit only as opposed to number four where it's not allowed at all um um and I can get you the
definition of small scale hang on one second yeah that would include dance studios and smaller scale compared to the commercial recreational facilities something like music that's
kind of yes small scale indoor Recreation um provides Amusement entertainment physical witness that incurs indoor for a fee or admission charge may require membership and cater to Walkin may also include a bever food or beverage Service Such uses are not
limited to arcades art dance exercise Studios drama voice instrumental instruction Studios lacrosse and soccer martial arts studio indoor swimming tennis handball pickleball badminton rack and ball and golf
simulation if I had to say that there's a few of those that trail on the end that definitely seem a little bit larger scale a swimming area does seem like it those are going into office Parks now seem a little excessive I I'm not like against it but it definitely seems like
it's not small train like an olypic size pool I would not consider that small scale but you know a kitty Splash Pad at a daycare yeah that sort of thing lacrosse and soccer that was the one that sort of Stu out to me but Paul explained it's not necessarily the size
of the facility it's the number of people you would expect to be using it at any one timeck Ball's loud so there's one over in easn Fieldhouse Arena that doesn't look big but they host soccer lacrosse baseball I mean it's not a large facility I grew up down the Grove
we had a giant soccer bubble down the road it was fantastic remember the soccer bubble back in the 9s and now it's now so I'm in favor okay so if everybody's okay small scale indoor wreck instead of being um disallowed within res IAL we
will now it with a special permit unless anybody feels very strongly against that if this feels very strongly Speak now or hold your piece for a couple of weeks all right forever I feel very strongly we going to bed and okay I'm getting there I'm getting there
rehearsal space for a metal uh nonprofit that just got moved to that particular cuzz it's wreck Country Club recreational day camp that got moved to recreational use Office uses
um the you took out my redundant ad from four years ago that's fine I did I'm sorry that's fine uh the other thing I did was I updated number five to be more modern terminology it used to be like data center or data mining or something
along those lines I just updated it for no it wasn't data center I forget exactly data processing yeah I updated it for more modern terminology that's all um and there was no definition for it so nobody's putting a big data center herec
is too expensive office uses are set aside in their own use table and then the next we've got commercial retail and service uses this combined two previous tables um so it's got all of your re
retail establishments um Steve you had uh had a question about services so those are now all listed here um body art establishment got moved here adult entertainment got moved here the
one that's still sticking with me that I can't figure out where else to put it is this one um is is that completely new it's not new it was in the industrial but I I have another chart it's almost the same as this but it's got a couple little differences I
combined it with the other vehicle sale I talked to Paul about it and he and I were going back and forth we felt like the sale or rental was kind of the predominant Factor as opposed to the product
itself but again we also agreed there's three different categories this you know if we're looking at farm implements it could go under egg um it could go under vehicle but farm implements and Machinery are not necessarily Vehicles
right and it's only being allowed in commercial well industrial by right in commercial by U special per where's the gap between a pickup truck and a snow plow what's that I mean if you rent a pickup truck with a snow snow plow you're getting a vehicle and a piece of
equipment right but if you're renting a thrasher then it's just a thaser that you would attach to the back of your truck primary use that we're regulating here so if their primary use is selling pickup trucks and they rent a Bobcat on the side I would be the primary use of
selling pickup trucks and the bobcat accessory use it's agreed there's things like like I said this could have gone in three different categories there's a few things that just don't fit nicely everywhere if possible I'd like to review the other
version that I put out there okay but um the rest is the same again just combining the other things so we changed motor vehicle uses to vehicle related uses because is we put bus Railroad
passenger Terminals and train stations here and a train is technically not a motor vehicle apparently um has a motor and it's a vehicle it doesn't it's not because it runs on a track okay it is not a motor
vehicle has a motor yeah it does um so because we had the same allowances for car wash and M motor vehicle light service just combine them into the two they were already combined um no car wash was separate it
in our original yes yeah so we combined them cuz we had we put common driveway here since driveways involve vehicles and common driveway didn't really fit great anywhere else just a yes or no is there a good definition of commercial parking facilities I just can't remember
no not not that I know of no because you can so if you have a car dealership and you want to store 200 Cars it becomes real issue I would say that so that's usually that's their main use it's not main use accessory yeah I would call
that their I would call that a storage lot well it's called many things like a storage facility I've dealt with this about 20 times this is what I'm saying it's usually there's usually something called open Lock Storage which is usually just automobiles I would just call it part of their principal
use and they can put it for that's why I was asking if there what's the def what is we don't have one it's parking facilities yeah it was as that was as it was in our current yeah if you want to I'm imagin a parking garage or pay to park lot that's what I was
imagining but yeah parking garages are usually a whole different animal well yeah but that's what I would take it as yeah he's kind of right that we shouldn't imagine so if you want to propose something yeah okay and I'm taking by we
killed miscellaneous killed miscellaneous separated it out um marijuana uses became its entirely own table just because it's a little that's it's distinct uh industrial
uses uh all right I'm not going to get into that right now because that is going to we're going to table that for another day um I had proposed initially where we allowed industrail by
right restricting it to special permit when they Abed a residential district to make our lives easier um and we talked to Mark about it and unfortunately there is a concept of Conformity and in order to be able to do
that we would technically have to reone the parcels in question as something like light industrial special permit needed um so we're going to table that for another day cuz that got Way Beyond recodification
thank you okay um so that one just got moved uh wholesale distribution of food and beverage got struck entirely because number seven already contains warehouse storage and distribution and it doesn't really matter what they're Distributing
or if it's wholesale um and the categories were exactly the allowances were exactly the same perfect um and then for lack of a better place anything related to Communications got moved here so your electronic messaging center
Wireless Communications digital billboard and then the other one that we had that we used to be I forget I think it was an I forget where it was it was somewhere out oh it was an outdoor or open space outd draw lighting for
non-residential use that got moved here uh or is it not allowed Village Center core that's it yeah every place else by special permit VCC is where it's not allowed is the high school fields in build Center Corp or is it short no it's
short okay thank you y um and then I think the last one is accessory uses and I don't think we did anything there and then we struck the other uses and we just moved those away so we wound
up I think with still 11 categories but okay they're organized a little more okay logically so there's still a little bit of work here yes they're not done but that's kind of the major changes to
the use table that we just wanted everybody's kind of sign off on before we kept proceeding do you feel like you have all what you need now to proceed yes I need to talk to Mark um about two or three
things um two with regards to the boing itself and one on the use table um okay but yeah if we can just get half an hour of his time on the phone separately then I think we're okay okay um so I'll let Steve drive now all
right yeah Laur pretty much handled most of it um I get a couple little changes from hers just a few differences um do you want to leave mine up or do you want to share yours could you sh could you share mine or whoever has it you you both got it sent an email that was today yeah okay hang on
sorry I've been out of pocket all day uh the most simple changes I I guess real right off the bat is I kept the food table separate instead of combining it with retail I just whether or not we do it doesn't really matter but um and the agricultural table I kept that
separate instead of combining it with recreational I felt it was pretty specific U the Farms are not really the same as sports facilities and stuff and kind of worked simple that way um other than that it's mostly just some
rearrangement um I can't find you do I good because I can't find your email I'm sorry and I saw it earlier like there differences in terms of allowances or it's strict well skip the whole dimensional thing cuz we skip past that I don't think we're going to use that
um I kept the suggestion there even though we don't we're probably not pursuing it of splitting the multif family that's a future effort I think um but essentially here what I want the board to focus on is just the order of things and the and the and the
charts the uses so be it um I did include the long-term care facilities nursing uh condoles homes L said we didn't have it but we we do have it in our table currently um the only thing I added was long-term care facility as Mark suggested okay otherwise that
exists hospital nursing and Condes that's in our use table already we don't have to add it it's just there okay um well Mark said we're not going to use long-term care facility cuz it's covered under the definition of senior
housing which is why we need the separate category for non-aged long-term care so just well okay senior husband's there and then there's another category that's for non-aged long-term care yes
they would be able to choose whichever definition was more appropriate yeah Mark's going to give us hopefully a definition and then yeah basically it'll specify it could be physical behavioral types of rehab and other care facilities
for non aged okay that's what that is okay is there so from a structure perspective you mention agriculture is on its own and then recreational is on its own yeah scroll down a little bit and other
changes um I well I suggested the top of the shop in the commercial just be a buy right but that's we the I don't have to worry about so much the allowances rather um fraternal Lodge cfic nonprofit uh it's not allowed in the residential zone right now so I suggested we make it
special permit by special permit um the facility is trying to buy Tweed right now they can't do that oh yeah so like that's the kind of situation at VFW and Nights of Columbus they can't go anywhere in a residential bone right now okay um so that was my suggestion on
that one not crucial but suggestion yeah um then continue down uh that's the the agricultural table I did offer s the suggestion there I put the comments on the side
where the first three lines that covers if we can replace that with just agriculture according to Mass General law that one line replaces our three L existing yeah our three lines have like the five and 2 acre setting whatever the
way I wrote it covers that setting it's just by special permit and if you reach that criteria it's it's allowed with that little Aster next next to the special perent sort of yeah I you said it's by stay lot anyway so um yeah I covered
that and then our animal like our domestic well our personal use animals it it says poultry and rabbits but it doesn't say anything about turtles or hedgehogs or what it might it doesn't cover any domestic species it's very specific how do you well Rob Rob you
want to breed your parrots bro said mice I was like who would nor mon I think no I think there's a level of we're not looking for somebody with a pet hedgehog right that's why I said domestic species if it's not a
commercial use if it's not a farm if it's not agricultural use and it's a loud species you should just be allowed to have it we're not we shouldn't be seeing a special permit for that or anything it's yeah I know when we changed the rules about around pulsy I'm going to call it
six years ago we were trying to figure out how to make sure that if somebody wanted to have five chickens they didn't need a special permit and the solution we came up with was what we have now which is you have less than 10 chickens and none of them are roosters we don't care yeah I mean I got a lot of
neighbors with dog the dogs that just bark and bark and bark yes I mean a chicken's no competition it's it's the idea that one species is a little bit louder than the other yeah we whatever we were doing was an improvement over the existing so we got some leeway in
terms of what we were actually proposing but um but either way that that was my suggestion to simplify those two lines and then I included the Zoological Museum petting zoo thing so if anybody wants to put an animal on exhibit it has to go through special aping
okay are it might be a future a thing to go to but that was my suggestion there either way agricultural table should be separated okay and then continue down from there it's a recreational table just all combined it's pretty
straightforward um if the allowances don't want to be changed that's fine I did include the small scale indoor Recreation change okay um like a hiking trail I don't think needs to be coming to the planning board for special permit
it's a path probably not so I like that's I just cleared that line I just made it by right um and then after that if you want to continue down I mean there were some changes to the wording and stuff if everybody wants to go over it but if you want to
continue down to the next category so we got the the food and beverage we got retail marijuana use the office table on the next one uh and then the industrial uses which I simplified down a little bit again um
self storage facility we don't need it online it is a storage facility we just approved one under warehouse storage facility and it's not any other use so we don't I don't see why it needs its own line I think Paul disagreed with
that but I don't remember why oh I think it's because Self Storage is typically for know personal items you know have whereas a warehouse could be plumbing supplies yeah but it's it's a big
building it's a big commercial operation it's a storage building and I like we're not changing the permissions I don't want Self Storage by right throughout the village commercial okay okay like I don't see it's not like a if
if it was like a self storage locker like a smaller Locker facility that's that's something I could see going in the village commercial but like by rights or but this is clearly a large building generally sure um I think it's
more of the I'm viewing it as what's bringing in the the items themselves so you're going to see a lot more it's youus tractor Trail yeah it's
still a storage building though I just think it's fundamentally different self storage and warehouse and I think the uses the the how it operates is different I I don't want to fall on my sword on that one but I just believe
that they're different should be separated but okay I it might like again because we we just approved one a couple months ago yeah under the warehouse setting right um um and again I don't think we needed give it special permissions
Beyond where a warehouse would be okay um the manufacturing I I simplified down I got rid of factories manufacturing firm and just put it mixed with manufacturing light like light manufacturing or heavy manufacturing basically okay
um and we're almost there that's it um I made a utility table instead of keeping that in the industrial so that's yeah okay yeah pretty straightforward uh the vehicle table and that's got that sale and Rental of newly used vehicles
construction materials handle just want in Combined line okay if anybody's fine with it if not so be it okay um can I ask are we scrolling through the chart there's just the accessory left I think that's the only small question I was but
that's say is there um table organization side can we just compile a list of specific decision points that we're looking for the board to make between
the two versions okay do you want A or B A or B on is self storage go every Warehouse or go by itself okay and then in terms of the organization of do we want a is
its own table or you want to combine with Recreation it makes no material difference in what's actually allowed just making it which ways makes the most sense structurally to organize it make it easiest to work
with so that I think if we have the decisions on the items then we can just choose which alignment do we like better sure any objections to that no that
would help move meeting faster no I mean because I'm looking at these side by side I can see okay I can see why you do that I can see that I can see why you do that and it's okay it's excellent the decision like okay my decision is is warehouse and Subs different yes or no
and then how we arrange it is a separate decision does that make sense Laura to you yeah okay okay is there anything else that we wanted to cover as part of this discussion I one small question you you
were scrolling fast and you went by and you said and this is for marijuana use and uh does it say Mar does the wording actually say marijuana use or marijuana sales because those are two very different activities I think they're both covered actually um we don't allow social consumption okay it just make the
way you said it it's but it's in our table like a hash dead or something social consumption is a no everywhere the idea being that put in okay yeah the category is now us somebody can smoke and then leave
and drive yeah that was the um weed no yeah I'm not saying yes somebody suggested the idea of a marijuana hot yoga and I went yeah somebody would do that um but I'm not sure I think that was when we adopted the bylaw we were
like we know this breath Li we really going together are we really going to go down this path right now okay I don't know whatever so that's for a future meeting to update marijuana section but um but I know we
originally adopted it that was the we just drew a line no social consumption it saves all of the questions about what's going to be allowed and what's not so and I was kind of catching on that worse of use marijuana use versus marijuana sales yeah and so it's only
the sales that are allowed if it says sales marijuana uses might be sales Manufacturing cultivation yeah uses would be yeah okay us say okay
okay I'm good anything further motion to adour hold on I hear your motion I'll ask I you see one hand raised Mr seagull did you want to add anything further I know that as Steve went through he said that he's looking not to make postale
changes to the allowances in each Zone but uh yeah one one is a question um can you tell what is going to be provided before the town meeting is there going to be some red line copy to identify I I know this in the B there's a lot of things
that have been changed in general but there there's some way of describing to the population exactly what kind of changes have been made in especially in the table of users some red line copies I believe there going to be a handout that goes over it yes Mr chairman
if we're going to separate out the list like you were asking Steve to do here's all the decision points couldn't we actually fill that out and say here was the decision we made at each one of those points to and that would satisfy what he's asking for some of the decisions we've already made so okay I just TR to way what want the the
attorney that's working with us as part of this process I said they would provide a handout for a town meeting for that Express purpose okay CU I know the last time we met I had requested something for Red Line copy I still haven't seen any not the from a red line no from a what we
changed overview yes and then there' be a clean copy I believe okay uh just two things on the in the current use schedule um the switch for the mobile home deleting temporary I was assuming that was for temporary construction or someone has a
mobile home and they leave it that temporarily the way this is drafted now you can have a mobile home as a principal residents on an 0 AC on on r80 and I'm not sure that's what you really want to do um but just throw that out and the other and Laura you would try to
explain that senior housing and then in C 8.3 8.3 is very different that's the facility is it it supposed to be senior housing also see 8.3 is it in addition to that because 8.3 is is not the same as senior housing yeah know whether 8.3
is a senior housing facility and then it refers you to the definitions within section 11 under senior housing facility so there's a whole subsection of definitions in 11.2 that address senior housing facility and that has things but the see
also 8.3 because 8.3 is different than senior housing 8.3 is senior housing facility is 55 and over right no it could be a nursing home it could be
def senior housing is limited to 55 and over I believe yeah and that's I think one of the points that Steve was looking to clarify in that we need to have a definition for something like that that would not necessarily be limited to that population and then uh within the body
itself there's just something that that maybe you can take a look at under 1.1 the the 1.6.1 the amendment from I was looking at 40 uh 485 and while there's notices to different towns and everybody else I didn't find
the notice to the butters that's in our current bylaws and that provision is now taken out and maybe a misreading what the A5 but I couldn't find any notice to a Butters in the statutory requirements and right now it's it's drafted in the
new bylaw we're looking only to that requirement if someone could check that out I may be wrong and the other two things were in 5.5 you still have a not you want a non-conform use build back you want to you you want to be able to increase the floor area of a non-conform
use by 100% I I I I'm not sure that makes much sense and if that's what you want to do and the last thing was on Earth material per earth earth materials you have basically that it won't affect the value of the the land but you've
eliminated that it won't decrease the value of the adjacent land and I think that's the primary focus of this the planning board is to make sure not that only will it not affect the land itself but you want to protect the abutters and I don't know it may be in there somewhere else but in the purpose itself
you've eliminated the impact on the abutters and when you moving Earth I thought as long as you're looking at the value of the land that's being removed from um I would think it's not unusual to affect the land making sure it doesn't affect the land of the Butters and those are
comment and thank you and I think to your non-conforming use point I think the intention of the vla is if there's a non-conforming use and it's totally destroyed you can build it back the way it was I think that's the intention uh if I'm looking at the wrong section then I apologize but I think we've noted it
down for review we we did add a section to the non-conforming where they can increase the size of a non-conforming use with permission from us if they want to add an addition to a non-conforming house we can allow them to get a little bit bigger okay understand
we'll look at that again okay thank you okay I still heard your motion we still haven't approved minutes so I apologize so we have five sets of minutes here that we had on our schedule minutes and five minutes all
right so first set of minutes is the minutes from April the 9th any additional comments questions or concerns motion to approve second have a motion from Laura and a second from Rob any further
discussion all in favor please say I I opposed extensions okay now we have the minutes of April the 16th motion to approve second okay we have motion and second
any further discussion on the motion for the six 16th all in favor please say hi hi opposed one obain extensions one abstention yet I couldn't hear who made the motion me Laura Laura
who second Eric Eric thank you Eric okay next April the 23rd motion to approve seconded thank you Lauren and Eric any further discussion hearing none all in favor
please say I opposed exensions abstain again from Rob okay next is the minutes from May the 7th motion to approve seconded thank you any further
discussion hearing none all in favor please say I I I opposed extensions no extensions no I was here I was here by then okay and the minutes of May the 21st final notes motion to approve seconded
thank you all any further discussion hearing none all in favor please say I I all opposed extensions okay that concludes the items that we had on our agenda this evening
is there anything else you wanted to you hand yourself ation to secondy say tried to argue with the jackass you know grass is [Music]
blue Peter say that again I'm on record