Good evening everybody and welcome to the Tuesday July 8th meeting of the Norton Planning Board. The public is welcome to participate in person or remotely. We are here in person at the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street in the Crane Room and you can also join
us online by clicking the link in the agenda. In addition, before any meeting, feel free to email town staff any questions you may have as listed in the agenda. I will call the meeting to order. I will
also note we have six members in person and one member, Rob Welsh, remote tonight. Um, as far as planning, board, business, and policies, Paul, I don't believe we have anything to discuss at the moment. Maybe a couple discussions after at the end of the meeting, right?
Uh, bills and warrants. Do we have any bills to sign down? Three bills to sign tonight. You have two that you passed out, right? As these bills are coming down, we do have several sets of minutes that Brian has worked on diligently and provided.
Do we all feel like we'd want to take these up tonight or do we want to hold them? I know he just sent them over the holiday time if we didn't have enough time to read them and go over them. That's fine. I believe Paul, there's only five of us that would be voting on them. Am I correct with you can still
vote on minutes even if you weren't in the on the board at the time? I believe I could be wrong. I don't think you can. I thought I heard another board say that, but I could be wrong. I think you're so they can abstain and that we'll be fine. Yeah. Either way,
as long as you have a majority, you're fine. We have a majority in person, so we'll be fine. Um I can review them if you want me to vote on them, though. I'm good for that. I'm sorry, Rob. I didn't hear you. I said I did re review them already. So if you guys do want to hold a vote, you
know, if we have five people that want, we can get them knocked off. Steve, Eric, Tim, what's your preference? I'm picking it up. He's just I'm comfortable moving forward. I don't know about anybody else. Steve, we've delayed on minutes before
for Yeah, we'll hold off. You want to read them? I guess so. Yeah, we we're going to Steve hasn't reviewed them yet. We'll hold off till next meeting if fair enough. First item on our agenda for public hearing is special permit 16 for one
Dean Street. The owner is JSC Holdings. The applicant is Morse Engineering. This agenda item has been continued multiple times and the applicant is requesting another continuence to July 22nd. Uh Paul, they are still actively
working with town staff or do we have any sort of update? Um I've been told in the past that they were modifying their plans and would be submitting at some point, but we haven't received anything yet. I think at some point we're going to
have to talk about getting this off the agenda. Um I know we've had this before. We've just continued things for months and months and months and we put a time limit on it. Um can we reach out to them? Well, I know you have, but maybe tell them and I'll take anybody else's opinion.
Um, I generally don't want to continue something for a year. I think was February. Yeah, February 25th was the first time we took this up. Um, they were only going to have five voting members. Also, did we open the public hearing? No, you never did. Okay. So, they're going to have the full
board. That's at least a little bit better. Um, anybody else have any uh questions or comments on this continued item? If not, I'd be looking for a motion to continue to July 22nd.
Motion to continue to July 22. July 22nd and we're going to reach out to them. Seconded. We have a motion in a second. Since we have one member of vote, we'll do a roll call vote for everything tonight. We'll go down the line. Eric, yes.
Tim, yes. Steve, yes. Bridget, yes. Ken, yes. Rob, sorry, he did say yes. Rob's a yes. And I will vote yes. I just can't I can't hear him very well. I think Ben's volume still working on it.
I'm trying to figure out why that is. I'm sorry. Everybody, can we hold for a minute before we open the next Rob? Would you mind saying something real quick? Yes. Did that work? Not yet.
What's happening? Am I just coming through really fake? You're just coming through the laptop. You're not coming through, you know, the speakers. How about now, Rob? I don't know. Is that an improvement? Yes. Yes. I can I can hear them. Yep. That's fine.
Okay. By me. Yes. Thanks for troubleshooting, Rob. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is site plan review 11 361 rear old colony road. The applicant is Jason Massie. This application is for a 6,400 ft garage and
trade service building with 12 parking spaces. We haven't heard anything from this item from I believe late March. um that was also with the old board. Um so there will only be five voting members on this item tonight and the
applicant's going to need four out of five for a uh positive approval of this site plan. Um Paul, do we have someone online? We do. We pop them back down. Uh we do have someone from Silva.
We can ask. You do. Good evening. Am I coming through? Can you hear me? We do hear you a little bit faintly. A little bit faint. I'll try to be loud. These are jealousy.
Rebecca from Silva Engineering here to represent Jason Massie and the changes to the site plan. Haven't been here in a while because we've been going to conservation and we've been addressing most of their concerns. And if I can share the screen, I can show you what we
have so far. Please do. Excellent. One moment. All right. We don't need the agenda. Um, so I'll take you through a little stroll where we are right now. Uh, I'll skip
that one and go right to here. The last time you saw this, um, layout, you saw this building with the parking all tucked over on the corner here. And before we had a drainage basin right in here. And so we went to conservation and
over the course of these last two months we've ironed out that this is a vernal pool. We have moved the drainage outside of this 50ft buffer area right here. There's a 50 foot and we moved it over here.
So now that all of this drainage and I'm going to move the page. Move the page. Okay. So all of this drainage, the basin, the outfall is outside of the 100 foot to a vernal pool which is required per storm water regulations. At the last conservation meeting, I
updated the commission and they wanted a peer review. So they sent this new design off to PGB and we received a peer review letter. His last two comments with this after ironing out all of his other comments were that we needed to do test pits in
the area of the drainage um to support where we assumed groundwater. Now I have conservation next week with them and we expect to do a test pit in this area to confirm our assumptions for groundwater which we're very convenient um conservative with our groundwater
approach. So, we're confident that we'll be able to achieve what the conservation needs with the separation of the groundwater in this this new location. Um, we shifted the septic over. Uh, we have to submit that to board of health,
but don't really see any issues. We have received comments from the water department and we have incorporated some of those changes in here where they ask for the water to come separately off a tea off the the main that feeds the house. Um
I don't think there was much else. Again, PGB did their storm water review and we satisfied everything that they had commented on except the requirement for test pit and they suggested that we condition it with um if the test pits
change what we've assumed that we have to go back to Conf for a modification and at this point in time we're okay with that uh condition on the plans. Um I know it's been a while since you've seen it. So, if there's any other questions, oh, one more thing. We did provide a widened driveway with gravel
shoulder to address some of the concerns for the fire department. I know they were concerned about how to access it. So, we have a detail to show 8 in of crush stone to widen the driveway uh to at least 20 ft. I don't think I have a dimension on this page, but I have it
here. Nope. Nope. I don't have a dimension here either. Sorry. It should give us approximately 20 ft for access for the fire truck. And after that, I think I've addressed all the comments that I have received to date. Is there any questions I can answer? I'd be glad to. Yeah, before you get too much further, I
believe Paul, I saw a note in the system still from the fire department from Deputy Chief Robbins. I believe it was like July 2nd still um asking for information on the construction of the driveway or something to do with the crush stone apron. Has that been resolved? I in our system the fire
department has not signed off. Um I I did ask him um you know I I emailed him later today. I didn't realize that this hadn't been resolved. So they were asking you know what are you using for crushed stone to support the
weight of fire department apparatus. It just wants to ensure it's not a loose stone that'll shift. Um I have a detail here for 8 in of gravel fill compacted if they recommend something else. Um
sometimes we use the geog grid to provide additional support in the gravel the the hexes that you get support can do that with the stone over it. We're just trying not to increase the impervious surface given the sensitivity of the
Right. Right. So whether we do continue this or whether we do vote on this tonight, either way, you're going to have to reach back out to them. I could imagine if we feel comfortable voting on this tonight, we could just make it a condition that the fire department signs off on that section that he has a
problem with, unless anybody else has a question or concern about that with that. Rebecca, the only thing I was going to ask you, could you just go into again since it's been such a long time the actual use of the uh building?
Um he he paints trucks. He he like um shoot what is it? When you put your um commercial logos on your vehicles. So he does big big truck uh detailing. Not detailing. That's cleaning them. Vehicle wraps. Is that
he he he labels the commercial vehicles? Yes. Wrapping and lettering, etc. There you go. Yes. Thank you. You can tell I've never done that before, right? Sorry. And it's it's a 6,400 square foot
uh Yes. structure with 11 parking spaces. So, it that's why it falls in as a as a site plan and not a special permit. Yep. garage. He has a overhead door that goes in and out so that he can get the vehicles all the way through the
building. And these are employee spaces. And then in case there's a turnaround reason, he has this. they can they can pull up and be able to navigate around. If that's all you have for us, Rebecca, I'll go to the members of the board. Anybody else have any questions,
concerns, comments? No. Okay. Nothing further. I'm good, Alan. Thanks. No further comments here from anybody. Any member of the public on Zoom or Mr.
Wiggins who is the only one again in person tonight? No. No comments from Mr. Wiggins be uh raising their hand, Paul, that I don't see on Zoom. I'm not seeing anything on Zoom. As far as I'm concerned, this is fairly
straightforward now. They've been working with conservation for a long time. I know Paul said John Thomas with conservation he spoke to today signed off. Other than the fire department comment, I'm not aware of any other problems or concerns with this. My uh
I make a motion to approve with the condition on the clear up with the fire department there. We're going to have to close the public hearing first, but we will take that motion and we're going to do sorry back. That's all right. We will do a condition fire department approval. And should we
condition the final storm water approval with the test pits or some language approving the uh verification of groundwater level for the storm water system would be my two recommended.
Um it makes sense to me. Yeah. So, if you if you would like to make another motion, Rob, to close the public hearing, the chair would accept that. We have a motion. Do we have a second to close a public hearing? Second. We have a motion in a second. We'll do a
roll call vote to close the public hearing. Eric, yes. Tim, yes. Steve, yes. Rebecca, yep. Abstain. Bridget. Sorry, I was reading Rebecca and look. That's okay. cuz I was like, "Whoa, that's a new." Well,
obain. That's the engineer name. And yes, and abstain. And Rob. Rob. Um, yes. Public hearing is closed. Any discussion? If not, the chair would entertain a
motion to approve the site plan review colony with the conditions as we talked about. Yep. That's it. Sounds like a motion from Rob and a second from Second. Steve. And we'll do a roll call vote. Eric, yes.
Tim, yes. Steve, yes. Bridget, abstain. Ken, yes. It's going to be an abstain. Oh, sorry. Yeah, you weren't here when we opened it technically, even though we didn't talk about it much. Okay. And Rob, yes.
And I'm a yes. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Next item on our agenda for discussion is the zoning bylaw recotification. Tonight we're going to be talking about
table 3.2 for the use regulations and section 11 definitions. We're still working on some AV issues, but uh I think Paul, do you want to pull up uh bylaw and we can start talking about the table with all these members
and people in public that came here tonight to talk about it with us? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to scroll first to the use table and I'll start to share.
We don't use regulations. says I'm sharing. Doesn't want to bend. One second. Okay. Now, Ben, you do what you need to do. Audio is getting very rocky here. We got that echo. That's all right. We're used to it. We
can adapt. We do see your sharing on the Zoom. So, it's just the screen here that's not uh Yeah. Okay. That's fine on the Zoom. on Zoom actually show us your screen.
You could proceed with what's going Yeah, it said it was sharing it. It is. It looks good. Just do it then. Sorry. No, it's fine. Yeah. So for tonight we're going to just
go through uh the use table and uh uh section 11 which are definitions since that they align very closely. Okay. So um uh
Steve also had some some things he wanted to discuss on a couple of the tables here. Um but just want to point out here too that um this is this is a redline version. So, it's strike through underline. And I've also put comments in. Um, some of them are just kind of
placeholders or, you know, reminders to me or, um, in some cases highlighting where a change might have come from. So, um, if we're just starting on table 3.2, two. Um, you know, lot you'll see that some
of these were definitions also were definitions that were added. But you could see like recently we had we had made changes on multif family and um differentiated between up to four units and then multif family five or more
units. And you can see where um how we propose treating those in terms of approval processes. Um you'll also note that we have we added mixeduse development. Um and then in here you'll see some highlighted areas and it might
be best just to have Steve because you had some comments on on these. Sure. And I also have your document Steve if you need me to. No, it should be fine. Um okay well it was my recommendation to switch well to
differentiate the multif family units uh the commercial the five and above or the four and below uh and to limit multifamilies in the residential zone at least to not more than four units uh now that we have the MBTA district
which is multif family by right I I'm also sort of recommending that maybe we think about limiting the multifamilies in the village commercial depending on how the board feels about that. Um but the the main thing is I would like to have some control over
very large scale multifamilies or greater control for the board. Uh beyond that uh I'm going to skip down to I guess the cluster development thing was sort of we
didn't change that here so that's not on my thing. Uh, cluster development is something I want to focus on in the future. I don't think we're going to attack it on this one, but I think we need to figure out how we can regulate that a little stronger because I think that's one of the things that brings up
the most problems for us, at least as far as neighbors coming out and arguing with us. Yeah. And there are other good examples for cluster developments that you know this is going beyond the scope of what we were doing with
recottification but um I have some examples of cluster developments that are truly more clustering than what we do here and they're more prescriptive in terms of what you do with open space. Ours just says you set aside 35% open space, but there's got to be more to it
than that. Like functional open space, like passive uses and whatnot. So, those are things that down the road um we, you know, we could um you know, examine how we would go about changing uh our clustering. Uh there there's one
more part on on the residential area that it's not on this one, but it's on my other version and it was a method to prescribe the residential uses that are allowed in the village center core cuz right now we have that sort of open bag
top of the shop by right. And we had that sort of thing of if it's any residential by right that means it's multif family by right also. So technically somebody could come in and propose a 100 units by right
as long as it's on top of a laundromat. As long as it's on top. Big one. So like I I think we absolutely need some sort of way to prevent that. At least special permit or or forbiddance for many units that large. But it's not
on this chart. It have you'd have to look at the other chart where I put like a a tag on it to say like what would be allowed and only allowed on top of the shop, right? It' be a footnote next to say single family or duplex to
say allowed in village center core uh only if above a commercial use something like that. And the idea would be for multifamilies that we do it by special permit. so that we can say no.
Uh right now it's undefined. It says no single family, no duplex, no multif family, no nothing. And and we're just kind of relying on the idea that it can be interpreted. Yeah. And then that also means that we we lack an argument against
I think the other piece of that that we touched on in the recodification a few months back was I think the definitions that we had landed on for
top of the shop was kind of like it's allowed if it's allowed in the underlying district, right? And I felt like I wasn't I would want to like look at that and just be sure that we're not that we have to look at those as a set. Sure.
And not um and make sure that we're not like saying one thing in the table, but then the definition makes it so you can't do anything even if it is in the table, right? I'm very cool with whatever adjustment we need to make, but I I think we need to actually sit down and roundt that one
pretty seriously because that's a that's a pretty big loophole we're leaving open. So before we go any further to Eric or Paul, who's going to be tracking what we're talking about right now? Paul, you got it going? Yeah. Anything we want to come back to if we want to hit it in depth tonight? Yeah. And I can make edits if you all
tell me tonight. I can edit it on the fly. Yeah, I just one thing I want to um for those of you weren't involved, you know, when we passed Village Center CPS about 5 years ago, one of the things we were trying to do was promote more commercial development in within that village
center core area, which was only about 40 parcels. And one of the intents behind it was do not allow just residential only. So that's where we came up, that's where we introduced top of the shop as a use. So, we'd want to make sure that however this is written,
we're not allowing single family by right within VCC. Um, or or we could look at another way. I mean, to get to Steve's issue about if the issue is we're concerned that we hit some threshold and it's getting very large and it's by right, maybe another
way to look at it is say I'm making a number up. If it's over 50 units, it triggers a special permit. I'm not saying that's the number. Um but that might be another way of looking at this. Um you know just as an
alternative but you know keep in mind you have building height limits you have setbacks building lot coverage. So you know fourstory building these are fairly small lots over here
although they could be aggregated. Yeah. So I think we kind of saw that with the West Main proposal. That's the that's what this the existing regulations allow by right the original one.
So if we're not if that puts us on the wrong side of the line that we see from like the restrictions of height and setback and parking requirements like that does place a limit on it but that was within within the limit. So if that limit makes
us uncomfortable, then that's we need to tweak it, right? Well, part of that was they could have added an extra floor and that's just that one parcel, but let's say they had a bigger parking area and it was only preventable because it's
in the historic district. I think we should be careful too right now since this is an ongoing Sorry for that specific project. Yeah, let's let's be careful how we're talking about it. But I I also will just say too, you know, going back five years ago, one of the intents was to try to incentivize development in this limited
area. And so that's why you see u some a lot of uses that we're trying to promote being by right. And that's why with this other the project you recently approved, it was a site plan um
not a special permit for um you know, some of the things that would have triggered it. So do keep that in mind that we're trying to promote it. So that's why you know there were yeses here where village commercial it's a
special permit. My only other comment Paul would be under three and four multif family dwelling residential up to four units commercial five or more I think we talked about it before but technically anything three or more is commercial.
It's four. No, tax it's five or more. Three or more is multif family, but five or more I'm talking like building code. It's considered commercial. Can I suggest maybe we just do away with the terms residential and commercial? That's what that's exactly what I was going to say. I don't see any purpose
for those two. Anything in building code, anything three or more requires sprinklers. So that's when it goes to commercial is what I'm saying. Okay. I was just going by the tax rates. Yeah. I know we hit that with some special permit where somebody didn't want it to be they had three
units and they realized they had a sprinkler and all of a sudden they didn't want to have three units. It's a huge huge number when you get to that. Everyone fine with that? Just deleting that slight text? I'm very fine with that. Good.
So, if we're good on that first chart, if you want to scroll down to the Okay, we talked about Steve, you talked about kind of wanting to roundt this in depth. Do we want is that something we want to do right now while we're talking about
it or something that we want to circle back to? And that's maybe a question for everybody here. I don't know. I if we're if we're if we're talking about the VCC portion, uh if Paul wants to bring up the my version of the chart, it's it's there for an example. That's my sort of thought about it.
My only thing would be maybe and I I'll do whatever everybody here wants, pick out the things like this that we really want to talk about, write it down, let people look at it, digest it a little bit, and talk about it at a later meeting. um might have better ideas
after stewing on it for a little while. Sure. Um you've been thinking about it. Maybe not necessarily all of us have thought about it as in depth you have. So if we know it's something we want to come back to or know it's something we definitely need to talk about more um or it's going
to take a lot more discussion I would suggest doing it at a separate meeting in which we can focus you know digging into more in depth than every so everyone has a little notice of what we're going to talk about. Yeah. I only me personally I only got like four or five things to attend to.
Mhm. The rest of it's all set. So yeah, I think I was more thinking that a pretty light agenda tonight. So if we need to have have it out over two lines for 25 minutes. No, I'm short. Yeah, everyone works different. I'm I'm
whatever you guys want to do. So mine's sort of organized a little bit differently, but it's colorcoded also. the VCC on the end that you can see the what I would suggest. I put a little sort of T as an asterisk place and then
at the bottom of the chart it says only allowed in top of the shop. That should be enough of a clarification. I think you might need to write a little paragraph but a single family home, tourist home, bed and breakfast those would be allowed by
right as a top of the shop. Two family dwelling, multif family would be special permit. Hotel and motel by special permit. That's where it's still where it is under three and four. Steve, is there something? Okay. Yeah. So, we change
from special permit for R40 to no. Yeah. Okay. That was my suggestion to lower it down now that we've passed the MBTA thing. Yeah, I agree with that. But, okay. If I'm reading this right, Steve, you're saying like if it's if it's to a duplex above
a commercial use, we're that's now triggering a special permit. Is that what you're It doesn't have to be. This is for the This is why I need the board's opinion. Yeah. I'm just trying to understand it. So, we could change it. So, it's cuz this is pretty substantial change.
Yeah. Right off the right off the bat, not having any anything other than single family in R4 anything in R40 is very strict. Sure. This is the most strict uh
you know break it down however we want. I I have sort of a a idea and a vision. The rest of the board has to discuss it. I've tried to present it many times and is there a difference between the dark red and the light red and the dark blue
and the light blue? Is that like Well, the dark blue and the light blue is special permit and yeah, but the dark red is just where I wanted to focus. Okay, it's just those are the No, color coding. I just wanted it was just those the dark reds are the things that we keep getting that that
residents don't like. Okay. And again for the VCC if we wanted to do by right all the way up to four units and then like that's fine and then we just special permit anything above four units. I'm very cool with that too. This is just like a a range I'm suggesting
cuz right now we don't have an option at all. There's it's just left open-ended and I see that getting us in trouble. So when you have the T asterct, does that mean by? Are you talking about? Yeah, but are you talking by right when you say only allowed like do you mean? Yeah, it's by right and top
as a top of the shop. Okay. So I'm just making sure Rob, you have something. Well, I was just going to I going to say a minute ago when you're commenting that strict. I'm okay with strict here. I I I think we should think that way. So I wanted to
and again if the the residential zone if we don't want to do if you want a special permit the duplexes still that's fine. It's just one of the more extreme levers. The the big thing I'm trying to think about is the multifamilies. That's the number one thing I'd like to
Yeah. Know I I'm with you on that. I I I have less issue with the multifamilies than I do with the two families and duplexes. Um, it's just such a common building style and such it's a very it's what everybody is
building right now and it's not just in this town. It's But is is it what everybody that's a resident is building or everybody that's an outside contractor that's looking to make money building a neighborhood is building both if they're selling if they're if people are buying them that means they're now a resident.
And I think that that's easier, right? But we were talking about residents coming in as opposed to the existing residents where with the updated ADU laws now almost every home is a duplex already. Well, not really. They still have to build the ADU, but now you're
incentivizing people to add small buildings to their own property instead of having a duplex. So, I honestly I do believe it's too strict. I I get where you're going with it. I do. I think it's too strict. I also think it's enough of a change that should have its own separate vote outside of requation.
So that's I think I think that is kind of what we did to ourselves last round is the biggest complaint. It seemed to me is we made too many changes. Granted, a lot of the changes made sense. I'm not saying what we did was wrong, but it was perceived as too many changes. The town
wanted to vote on them. And I think this kind of starts leaning more into that direction. So I just want to voice that opinion on on what we're looking at. I I agree and I think it's a very fair assessment. My only argument is that if there are
changes being made then any changes like we're either doing it or not and we're either changing the the uses table or or not. If there's edits going somewhere then why not one or the other? Uh, and again,
if if some of them are too extreme or strict for anybody, then that's also a fair critique. Well, like I said, and in general, I get I get what you you're doing here. I just my concern is again, it's just, you know, besides the fact I think it's it is a little too strict. I think you're
you're pushing people into ADU territory by default. um is just that it to me it just seems like a big enough change that you know granted it's probably towards a direction that the town might like the voting part of the town might like but it is to me a major change that even if
we have recottification if we get that pass have a second vote even that same night to make those updates I think that would make sense um but just I just like said I just want to caution towards making like huge changes they should be clarifying changes not necessarily like
policy changes for lack of a better term right now. Fair and I agree. Uh further down in my chart, I also recommend that we don't add smallcale recreation to the residential zone. That seems like something that's going to get an argument from a lot of people,
even if I like the idea. Um and then my suggestion of the neighborhood shop, I actually suggested that we move into the accessory use category. So, it's more like a home business that can open a storefront instead of just an individual commercial building.
I'm going to say this is not too strict. You've left the room to be flexible in it. Thank you, Rob. Yeah, I think I'm trying to I guess find a middle ground here in terms of residential uses. Paul, if you scroll
back up, sorry. Um, yeah, I think clarifying village center core, I think that's something that maybe does fall into recotification. Maybe the rest of it is a little bit
more over that line cuz it was kind of a gray area. Yeah. Um I think I forget who mentioned it but kind of drawing the line between by right and special permit somewhere in that continuum between two and four. I
think that makes sense and kind of say you want to put three units above a pizza parlor, right? That's the exact purpose of mixed use. You want to put 12 units above something that's a little bit bigger. We should
talk about that a little bit more. Um, so I don't know if it if the line is two, if the line is four, I I'd be super comfortable going all the way up to four units by right. That's not an issue at all. Yeah. I would just I mean that that is a
substantial change than what we were talking about 5 years ago. Oh yeah. We were not capping it at any low level like that in just village center core. I mean I get it. If we're talking about village commercial, I think that's a more appropriate area to place these limits. Village center core, I mean,
this was the area. This was our center. We were trying to get more there and simplify the approval process. Four units is not it's going the opposite direction. It's just now making it like every other zoning district where we're
putting a special permit on it. But again, we're we are saying that if we don't change it, we're saying as a planning board, we do not want the ability to say no to a project. We just don't even want to give oursel
that privilege. If it's a top of the shop, you would have Yeah. It would fall under as a site plan, which is a site plans you can't deny, right? So, that's what I was saying earlier. If you wanted to, I would you would think we should think about maybe there's an
upper cap that we would set to say this is the number if we go above it, we can't we want to see that go as a special permit. But I would just say four units is really I don't know where that line is. I don't know like somewhere in that
but that's maybe I think seems to be where what's restriction in Santa Court? Four four stories. Four stories. Four stories. But the the town really does want us to clamp tighten up on this stuff. So I don't
have an objection to this. We we should kind of listen a little bit what the town is. We don't our goal is not to try and build a lot of multif family housing in Morton. I'd like to listen to the town more, Rob, but nobody's here tonight besides Peter. I agree, Ellen. And that is frustrating
as hell. And I'm going to mention it seven more times before I close this meeting. No. And when we when we did the whole please do so because it'll be on the video and you know my big mouth. I'll be pointing it out and sticking to people that are they're always mouthy. Tell them show up.
For me this is a lot. One sec. For me this is a lot. This is the first time you seeing this Steve. Mhm. I need to stew on a little. I need to sit I need to have them both side by side. What we have existing what we had talked about for recotification last time in this. Yeah absolutely. Um, so it's definitely
something. Yeah, I need to sit on Tim. I was just going to say when we did the village center core 5 years ago, we did a whole public workshop process. We had example photos of what do you like about this kind of concept? Do you like this
kind of concept? We had them all around in easels in different rooms. We had a we took over a room at Wheaten at one point for an evening. We were outside at one point, were we? Wasn't there something outside? that I remember too. No, I don't remember an outside one, but I remember Zoom,
but yeah. And I But so it wasn't this came from feedback from the town at the time. So it's not and it was passed by town meeting. Yeah. So um with 100 people there most likely
I forget. But yeah, so I'm fine not continuing the discussion further on these kind of couple lines here, but I've shared my thoughts. Yeah, Paul, if you could just send this to all of us. Thank you. Um I'm sure no one else has seen it. Um and then we can put it on the list of
maybe one agenda item. I forget our exact schedule, but uh maybe before if we have time before any other public um outreach hearings that we're going to have on this, maybe we can go back and dive into the things we need to discuss a little more
amongst us before we have more public if that makes sense. And Paul, you're still sharing Steve's draft here from Yeah, I'm just getting that email. Would help if I just did the simple
planning board. Would help. And that has been blind copied. Okay, let me Okay, so back up to use case uh table 3.2. Yep.
Oh, and I I thought I just had I don't mean to confuse an issue that we're going to talk about later, but just something to think about is maybe instead of a per unit limit, maybe a living space limit. Like basically not x amount of units, but you can have x amount. the units have to be a minimum
size or something like that. Something a little cuz every every project's going to be different. It's going to have different top of the shop. The shops themselves are going to be different sizes. It might be worth doing it dimensionally instead of per unit. I'm not sure my brain's ready to think
about that at this point. Don't don't think about it right now. Just throw it out there. my map. I'll give Paul one more minute to email us that chart so we can look at that before it went out. Thank you. Unless anyone else has a comment about
this chart, we can go on to principal use community facilities. Can I just I know long-term care facilities we talked about repeatedly in the last round.
Steve, do you feel like you're good with where we are in the document that we have now? Well, what we what we were discussing was senior housing, the senior housing facilities was the part that we're discussing because it it um it combines senior housing, which is just a 55 year
and older uh community with no medical facilities or whatever. It combines that with the ability to add senior medical facilities, nursing homes into the same category. I'm okay if everybody else is. It's it's just it's choosing to not
differentiate them where right now senior care facilities are included in what would be long-term care facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, convolescent homes. Okay? It doesn't need to be added to the senior part. Okay?
But it's not crucial, I guess. I suppose a senior community is going to get older. They might want to age in place, add a little facility to the same neighborhood. Okay. It's I don't know. I mean, they're in the same zones right now. So, yeah,
but it it again, it's it's sort of one of those technical things like, do we want to differentiate that? It's already separated. We already allow both things. Do we want to combine that one together? Um I'm pretty either way of it, but however the board decides.
Yeah. I was partially just flagging that for uh for Bridget and for uh Ken is uh take a peek at it as we go through it. Yeah. The other thing that we allow in for senior housing specifically, which is also part of why I tagged it on my own
chart, is senior housing can be multiple buildings in especially in the village commercial zone. That project that was across from Dean was originally the senior housing. That's why the original blueprints had that layout.
Uncle there. Yeah. One more page down. Paul. Yep. So, community facilities, right? You can see the strikethroughs and underlines here. I I have one question here for this
chart. Uh, and it's if you go slightly down, it's the medical center and clinic has been added to this chart. We already have the long-term care facilities, which is like an overnight. That's a place with a bed. Uh but in our
commercial chart like in our like further we already have medical dental office. So which we're sort of doubling up on that one. What is the difference between a medical center and clinic or a dentist
medical clinic which is further down? It's just sort of doubled up. There's one in community and one in commercial. Paul, can you scroll down just so we can see the difference? Cuz that one was three nos and four yeses. And this is three nos and four yeses. So
it's the same. Yeah, I would agree with Steve. We I would keep it in office. It was added to the community. So we could just scratch it off that scratch it off principal use here. Just under office use. Yeah, maybe just make sure all the word all the words are in
in one place under commercial. I mean, whichever one you guys want if it's community use in your opinion or commercial use, but it don't matter. It looks like commercial use to me, but I just make sure all the terms are in the on the same line. That's all. Yeah, sure.
But I'm happy to hit the delete button on uh on this under the commercial uh under the uh community use. Yeah, as long as we think get under commercial. Anything to get us under 140 pages.
Really small font. Well, again, a lot of that's going to go away once we uh Come on. What are you doing? We need to fix the table afterwards. I think we'll be okay. We can uh
Okay. Okay. Um open space. Yeah. This is the only other big thing I need you guys to think about. Um, number four, number one,
uh, it needs to be changed from domestic species to exemptionless species. That is the title of CMR 321. Uh, it's the same same paper, but just that's the the title. Um beyond that uh
the number 12 or under uh the difference between 12 dogs, 12 cats, 12 bunnies, 12 hamsters or 12 horses, like they're all based on
just a a random number instead of an actual weight or size. 12 is sort of random. If if you have two chickens and they have eggs, have you exceeded your limit? Not after breakfast. If you have a if you have two dogs, two cats,
those one are your better ones. And yeah, that's pretty good. Now, if you have two dogs, two cats, you you probably don't have enough room for much of a chicken coupe. What is the ratio of how many pets you can have? So, again, that I I put in my
own chart. Uh, I don't know. Uh, Paul, you want to bring up the the one I showed you? Um, I sent you an email actually with the definition with animal. It says animal unit as the subject, but you want to do chart first, right?
Yeah, we'll show it on there. Yeah, I was going to say one animal unit. Steve, I know you were looking at the mass definition for animals. Would you have any objection to the wording in the table saying domestic species and then
put the exemption list in the parenthesis? So people are like what do you mean exemptionless species and they don't see okay domestic animals? Okay, this is the whatever the state calls it just as a like member of the public ease
of reading guidance. Yeah, I I mean we we could um the way it sort of lists it in the actual law, it says has the the exemption list species and then underneath it it says domestic species and there's a caveat that the domestic
species list includes the prior mentioned exempted animals. We could use either term, but essentially it's saying like a guppy is an exempted species, but it's not totally domesticated. Yeah.
You know what I mean? A a parrot is not considered domesticated. Yeah. It's a legal exempted animal. Yeah. I guess I was just thinking if I looked and saw exemptionless species, I'd be like, what the what is that? And how does this help me understand what I
need? And should we put it in the definitions of it? Well, yeah. I I did again I sent an email to you. It says ex it says animal unit. The view button. All right. and it has like sort of like a little definitional
thing. Um, and I kind of updated it. So, essentially one animal unit is an agricultural term for like a,000 pounds of animal mass whether it's one cow or a couple pigs or that's the explanation.
Basically, a horse or anything smaller in different units. Essentially, it's it's essentially the the goal of this would be to allow personal animal use like like a small homestead, not a
farming operation, no commercial uses, but for you to actually keep a couple animals given the size of your property. Um, and part of it I don't want to do one I I know it wrote different on the thing, but I have a one animal unit per acre
would be the better measurement cuz it's it's supposed to be how many animals won't ruin the property and can live sustainably. And this is a relatively low thing. This would apply to most properties. Anything under two acres. 2 acres you can qualify as a farm. 5 acres
you're a farm by right if you want to be. So, this is mostly for just small lots to have a few animals. If you by this measurement, if like I live on a 5,000 foot property, my cutoff is a it's 115 lbs of livestock. So, it' be like a
chicken coop, some bunnies, and a dog or two. It's I wouldn't be able to have a cow. Like, it's not enough room. Yeah. But that would be an accurate measurement of what you can actually fit on a yard. And everybody would have to
review this and, you know, think of the math on it and whatever. But does anybody any towns around us or anything local have anything like this that you've seen? I mean, there's I can try to bring up references specifically, but yeah, there's other car towns that I
referenced like the Federal Bureau of Land Management, Massachusetts Law for Agriculture. There's I can pull I can put together like a chart of reference material, but if you look up the ratio doesn't sound bad in my head when I think about like what's what's an
acre, what's 3/4 of an acre, what can you fit on it, it doesn't sound bad. Well, that's why it's that's the measurement that's been averaged. Yeah. I'm just Yeah. And and then the next step up from that is once you have two acres, you can just have a a herd of
cows cuz you're a farm. Like you So it's a pretty drastic step up. This is just Yeah, I know the existing code. We have a restriction on chickens and roosters. So this would loosen that code. Yes,
it would. It would substantially for anybody that wanted to do a private homesteading thing. This would open up that right. And we have no no swine currently too. Is it not for farming operations? This would only be for personal use. This is like
having pets and food. This is not for retail, not for commercial. You're not doing horse rides. That would all fall under a farming operation. Just think about it, Steve. When I joined the planning board, you couldn't have a chicken coupe without a special permit. Yeah. Somebody came up with that
regulation after after it was already allowed. That's too bad. But uh yeah, I don't know if the rest of the board has to have some input on that. Yeah, we came up with no roosters, but you can have so many chickens because we figured that was the path of least
resistance to not have to have a special permit for four chickens. Yeah. After two of those in like 6 months. Most you can't have roosters though, right? Yeah. There's supposed to be a noise thing, but I can I can hear dogs all day
long. I my neighbors got chainsaws and jackhammers or whatever. It's just Yeah. We also have no noise bylaw. So, no. So, why restrict it? I I have a rooster in my neighborhood already. So, I guess I won't exceed it
was just roosters do special permit now. I think they would. Going back 10 years, everything with wings needed one. Basically, you couldn't have a chicken coupe without a special permit. And then we changed it 2018 somewhere in there.
Recall if our bylaw allows roosters. No, it doesn't. Not if you're a Unless you're a farm cuz it it it originally didn't allow any chickens without a special permit. And then we said you don't need a special permit if there's no roosters as a Yeah, we want to relax it, but we don't know
where to draw the line. But the the animal unit doesn't sound if there is an example like town other towns using this like in their bylaws like like right off the logically it makes sense. What we hope what would we hope have? I'm just trying to
around here that would Yeah. Anybody agricultural fear? Correct. Sure. Yeah. I'll pull up some examples but if you know if everybody wants to at least consider it. Yeah. Paul, in the email you just sent, this is in it, correct?
Yes. Um, I have to forward that one. The definition, this was a separate document. Separate document. Yeah. And you know the whether it's by right or special permit outside of the residential zone debate. I I don't it
doesn't matter. I it for in my mind this is something for somebody that owns a yard to make production out of it for themselves sustainability. I'll forward that right now. Rob, I didn't hear you on that one. Do
you have any other comment? No, no, I don't. Thank you, Bill. I was intrigued the parrots were an example, but you'd rather have 12 cows next to you than 12 parrots. I like parrots.
I used to work at a pet store with a really nice parrot. So, here's recreational uses. Yep. Steve, did you say you had a Yeah, because we're part of this proposal is that we're asking to put smallcale indoor recreation into the
residential zone. In my mind, it's not a bad thing to if it's an arcade an arcade or whatever, a gym in a neighborhood. I I don't personally think it's a bad thing, but I do think it's one of the things that will bring up resistance. If we're talking about changing things, like Eric
said, about causing any sort of major change, that is kind of a big one and at least one that one of us has to get up and advocate for. So Tim just volunteered. Thank you, Tim. Perfect.
Did I saw you raise your hand? I put I went and so in my mind this this might be one of those things that we do as like a separate article later. But whoever wants to push it, I'm I'm cool. But I just I feel like this might be one
of those parts of resist resistance. Y'all don't mind. I have a question here. It might seem like a stupid one, but it kind of struck me a couple times I've come by this page. Um, item one there says allowed by right principal uses and it's saying allowed by right
and yet everything here has to go before the planning board. So that doesn't sound like by right for me. And it's almost like should we be taking a lot by right off of that? We're just saying these types of uses are PB. Well, it would I guess it would qualify
the recreational camps or the public parks and recreation areas. or the smallcale indoor recreation in the village commercial area. It's whichever right further down this was number one where it says allowed by right but then since
they have to go to the planning board if it's by right the use is by right but we're saying anything 10,000 square ft or more or 25 parking spaces or more it's a special permit. Okay. But the use the use itself is by right if you're under those amounts.
Yeah. This is really not a change. That answers my question. Thanks, Alan. That's what I wasn't getting before. Thank you. So, what about recreation smallcale indoor in the ours in the R districts? Well, I I mean I mean again I'm looking
at it as right now our scale is 5,000 ft or under which 5,000 ft is bigger than a lot of houses. Um and if it's, you know, kind of allowed to have, you know, a certain
amount of cars, 20ome cars or whatever like that. I I could just see it being contentious. That's right now I'm I'm petitioning like I've I've advocated that we make home occupations by right instead of special permit and I
got a little resistance on that. So adding a whole recreation center seems a jump ahead. I agree. And we want to just turn those to no
in the Rs. My brain thinking about it right now says it should be a no. But I think be when was the last time we talked about this? I remember we've talked about this two or three times, haven't we? Yeah, it was before the last town
meeting. We had multiple discussions on this. Do we want to have our default be no, but flag it for discussion later? I'm fine with that. I'm more comfortable with that. switch it to no and then if anyone wants to think about or bring it back up, we'll bring it back up next time we pass
through this. Okay. Yeah. All right. And I'll flag this chart D. Anybody else have any com questions, comments? No. No, that's good. office uses. A lot of these were some of these were
moved, but there were some additions like and we didn't have a medical use. Um, and we surprisingly had some medical offices here. Um, anything for office? No, no, we we cleaned this one up a lot last time.
Yeah, commercial. Okay, so we added a lot of uses here. Uh, Steve, you had a comment about the neighborhood shop, which that's a new use, but you were saying move it as an to an accessory under the accessory use table.
Yeah, depending on how the board has it. My my idea was that if there's anything that should move into the neighborhood, it should be like a tiny neighborhood shop. My recommendation that that it stays under 1,000 square ft. Then I was wondering if we even tempered
it even more instead of making it just a standalone shop that it would have to be an accessory use to an already existing residence or something. Uh there's a lot of home businesses that are just not allowed to display that they're a business. They can't open up a storefront. They can't have customers
regularly walking in. There's a bakery right on Reservoir Street that nobody knows is exist cuz I know it exists. Where is it? You know, you can't pass it and know unless you know. Well, you got the little box she has out front. No, this is a place I can stop my trips
to and from the res. Where is it? But yeah, it's a secret, Rob. They can tell you. It's It's Yeah, you got to you got to find it. You got to sniff it out. You'll find the bakery. Um, but yeah, however anybody feels about it, whether they want to keep it
as just a standalone or accessory, however more comfortable. Yeah, it's a few. My first or I should say my next thought about it would be I like it better as an accessory use.
Okay, good. So, let's take a look at accessory uses. Yeah, I was just looking for where that is even mentioned here. It's under K. It's under K. Under K. So, we would just add that
here. Steve, is that I guess like number five, I guess would be like it it would go after home occupation or something. Okay, let me just uh either way. Okay, as going by the definition that we're
already using for it, it's already limited to only four employees like like a home occupation. There's already a limited amount of parking. It's not more than 12 occupants sort of thing. So,
yeah. I'm just thinking from a size standpoint. I'm trying to think uh I'm thinking of what we just talked about tonight right now. Yeah. I'm just thinking of something like Charlie Country Store. I mean, it it's not operating as a store anymore, but Sure.
How many square feet was that? Well, yeah. I mean, I I suppose the bottom square footage was probably less than a thousand. Yeah, but like something like that. The principal use would probably have been commercial.
So that would not be allowed if you moved it to an accessory use. Actually, it would be top of the shop. So that that was technically a top of the shop. So this would be like building building like a an out building or using a,000 ft of your house. Right now we do
home occupations. They can't use more than 25 square feet uh 25% rather. If anybody else doesn't have a preference, I'd say I'm fine with moving it, but leave it flagged. So, we could pass over it one more time.
We're going to compromise position. I think we should do that. Yeah, I I think this is a a safer move. You could still get some something in it. Sure. And potentially get it in, you know, in a residential area, but
yeah, one step at a time, very gradual evaluating your own operations through these. I'm number three. Okay. Okay. So, vehicle related. Anything else
I should say under commercial retail? Um, oh yeah, one more. Uh, fast food. Are we going to regulate that? Do we have the standards to regulate? Are we going to forbid a restaurant from
having to go boxes? Forbid them from what? Like to- go boxes. What is What is the exact definition of fast food? Have to be like a drive-thru. drive-thru is its own special permit process. Right. So, what is a fast food restaurant? Fast food. What's the definition, I
guess, is the first one that can be prepared. Is it worth just scrolling to definition, Paul, for fast food if we have one? If we don't have one, I mean, then it would fall under restaurants. I mean, in my mind, I think we we just scrap the fast food one. I was like, why do we need a separate
definition for that? Yeah, it's really fast food. They sort of prepare it before you get there. And in fact, the definition of restaurants says an establishment other than a fast food restaurant. So we don't have a definition of fast food. So we need
Yeah, that become you know what is that that becomes a gray area. We need a definition of Chipotle, right? That's what I mean. Like I I both I'd rather just scrap the fast food thing cuz it's like a special permit. How are we going to deny that?
How do you define it? And we're going to deny it in a place where a restaurant can exist anyway. And there is a separate drive-thru requirement under Yeah. The That's probably the key. There was the drive-thru.
I I don't think Chipotle's fast food, but like Taco Bell would be. They have drive-thru in here. Well, the places they prepare it ahead of time, so when you come in to order it, your food's already there for you. Oh, cuz that's how McDonald's does it. They're they're constantly flipping burgers. The
idea people buy them, but I feel like it's touchy. And again, we're special permanent in what the commercial zone. Why? Yeah. I don't see a That's where I want to talk about through. You're going to get the You're going to special permit at the drive-thru anyway.
Which is why we haven't done a new drive-thru in how long? Last one was the community center. That one doesn't count. They feel permanent today. They have a They do for the food pantry.
Oh, that's nice. Really? You guys? Oh, wow. I didn't Okay, it came before us with special permit. But that but like that's why the the Duncan on 123 that turned into Tasties doesn't have one. went to Duncan
back in 2005 for refused a dry fruit and the Duncan last until 15 years ago back now it's tasty that's why you're here Peter little you want to just
you maybe consider removing fast food but recons you know look at that as a reconsideration as well I would almost get rid well I would get rid of the fast food but maybe move drive-thru facility up to commercial. Drive-thru is a good suggestion cuz all fast foods that that's kind of
drive-thru is uh vehicle related. Vehicle related. I know. Commercial. Maybe just put like a an asterisk or something under restaurant like see drive-thru
requirements additional below or something. I mean, it seems pretty straightforward. But if they're asking for a drive-thru, it's a special permit. Yeah. But if you look restaurant done and if you don't think to look at motor vehicle or something like that, just to like call out like
I mean I don't mind explaining it more. That's fine. But yeah, no, I'm not not changing anything just from a ease of use standpoint. Well, so under restaurants would we put excluding drive-throughs? I would just say restaurants star additional drive-through requirements
may apply. drive through drive-thru. Look at the vehicle table requirements. See, vehicle uses table whatever it is for a drive-thru. Yeah, basically. So, under restaurants, nightclubs, and
other places serving food and beverages reference whatever chapter and verse the drive-throughs are on just so it directs somebody to look there if they're looking for a restaurant and not thinking to look under vehicle uses. Yes, it Well, I mean, we could or Zerich
was I think you were suggesting move move uh um the drive-thru up to up to retail. Yeah. Yeah. Get take out fast food and put up the uh drive-thru right under restaurants.
I'm fine with that also. That's fine. I mean, I guess I'm it's okay, but does does it sort of skew the vehicle related chart? Like, do we is the drive-thru a primary use?
I mean, we're regarding it as that. Yeah. Yeah. It's listed as a primary use. Yeah. So, I mean, what else? We do have a public comment actually in the Zoom, but CVS has a drive-thru. TVs. Still no
comments other than Peter. No, there's a comment in the chat actually. So if um if that person wants to unmute and speak, maybe that's I don't know if you want to go to public comment now, Ellen. I'm fine since there's only one other member of the public here. Matt, we
cannot take messages in the chat as public comment, but we'd be much appreciated if you want to unmute yourself and chime in. Maybe his microphone's not working. That was exciting for a moment. We're not hearing you, Matt, if you're
speaking. He's definitely unmuted. So, Matt, if you figure out what's going on, you want to chime in, feel free. I guess I'm fine with this either way. Either the note or moving it. I don't think it's We're not changing the zone. We're not changing the use. We're not
changing much. I'm fine with keeping it or I'm fine with moving it. Yeah, the BCC goes to a no. If we do move it up there, I think that's the only change between the two. Wait, I'm sorry. What? With fast food that that would become a
no for Oh, no. Oh, you got it. Never mind. Yeah, I've just copied it over. Gotcha. But other than drive-through facility, other nothing else. I mean, it wouldn't be in anything other than commercial or retail. Yeah. I'm thinking CVS,
but that's falls under commercial. Commercial. Yeah. Yeah. A hospital. Does that count? A hospital? I saw a drive-thru. You could do like a They have a drive-through like that drop off ER loop. Well, actually it kind of was during co was
co there were lots of co there was. So there's I mean there is precedence not normal but there was precedence. I think we're fine because I think most people are going to hone in on with drive-throughs under commercial uses. It's fine either way. It's not a
problem. Um but if we're good for I had another motor vehicle chart comment. Let's go vehicle related. Okay. Yeah. Um, we got sales and rental of new or used vehicles, but then underneath it we have motor vehicle rental station.
Motor vehicle rental station is a new addition. Yes. I I think that's just like a rental car facility like an enterprise or something, right? But would that not just fall under sale or rental of new or used vehicles? Um, I think the difference was
here this when you follow it with construction or or materials handling equipment, farm implements or machinery. I don't think that's implying a car rental. I think that's a rental equipment for you like u tractors and things like that.
Did we not have in in our bylaw now? Aren't we very light on rental? Yeah, I'm thinking of something. It's it's light and it's also it lacked it it wasn't it was only rental of equipment or sale of
equipment. It missed it it was missing one or one of those and I remember we had a ZBA case that came Yeah, we remember that and uh it was the bylaw was so strict and he was doing the identifying the one use that was not
called for so we had to deny it and then he reapplied didn't he? No. Relocated. Relocated. That's what it was. Yes. So I Yeah. Again, I don't know how anybody feels. I just I do notice that there's in my mind a duplic duplication.
It's vehicle rental. If you substitute vehicles for cars, it changes it a little because a vehicle could be anything, right? I kind I like the word vehicle because it's it's more correct. Um
the only difference in use is just that what's that fourth that middle column there that would be V well it's VC VCC commercial is one that's different. Yeah. So it would in theory
we'll just use enterprise herz as an example is permitted in village commercial but somebody selling a tractor is not is that essentially the difference that we're seeing here essentially. Yes, I think so.
I guess I don't have a strong feeling either way. Yeah, I'm fine if we're if as long as we have a way to like we've discussed the different like this is just for like cars to rent but no construction equipment. No, this isn't a U-Haul
facility or is it should we put in passenger vehicles or because that would be materials handling equipment or like could be a U-Haul. Is it a trailer? Yeah, that's why I just figured it number four covers it all. Yeah,
if we want to adjust like the number four to say like special permit or yes in VC also, we could do that. It still encompasses it all. I think I would like that. Yeah, I'm just thinking of
some of the existing uses we have in town, especially down near um down near the auto bro end. Yeah. Yeah, it's kind of exactly what I'm thinking. Yeah. Yeah. And strike motor vehicle rental station.
Exactly. Just get rid of it. Yeah. So, we've given the ability to allow it in village commercial if we see fit, but otherwise it's synced. Uh the the only other thing we we didn't
discuss this at all yet. uh bus or railroad terminal or passenger station is just allowed by right. Do we do we want to have the ability to regulate that if it comes up at some point?
Residents aren't really going to propose it. That's a good question. I mean, this was not a change. I wonder if this is railroad. There may be federal laws, right? I'm guessing. Um Okay. Some type of do situation.
Yeah. Just never mind it. The MBTA moves so fast. Just skip it. That's not a thought. I didn't have it. Next. Want to talk about adjusting the marijuana table. We didn't touch anything.
Didn't touch anything. Industrial. And we're not touching it now. There. While Paul's scrolling, Matt, I do see your comment. Yes, we could not hear you. Um, you must have a microphone problem, but I think we hashed out what you were talking about.
Yeah. So, I had a recommendation for the industrial zone, too. This is I think my last one. Uh, warehouse storage and distribution facilities in BC. I was I was thinking we don't allow them in village commercial.
I don't think we actually want our village commercial to be primarily a warehouse. Like I don't want I think we all want it to be stores or businesses to go to but not just a warehouse. So currently we have it as special
permit. What's the column next to it? My brain's VCC. VCC. VCC is next to it is a no. Then commercial. Commercial is a planning board. Industrial is a yes. Yes. Yeah, it's on it's on the continuum the right way. Yes, you can put an industrial if you want to talk about in
commercial a village commercial. You need a permit. Permit. So Steve's suggestion would be moving that line to be more restrictive in village commercial. I'm good with leaving it for now. Yeah, I'm trying to think I don't have a strong thought about it
right now. Either way, I'm just I'm thinking of like some of the I guess most of the self like the not like a big self storage like the one on South Washington, but the ones like the ones behind U-Haul and Attboro now or the one um
up by the Grove that's a little bit more neighborhoody feel even though it's bigger. And I know there and there were issues with that permit, too. But it's still a special permit, so we can Yeah. regulate. Okay. You want me to flag it for
reconsideration? Yes. Yeah. Okay. My my overall my big ones are the multif family housing, the neighborhood shop, and the the exemptionless species. Those are the the three really.
And Paul, could everything that we flagged tonight, could we get that all in an email to everyone so we know? Yeah, I'll get this out tomorrow. Even if it's just a, you know, chart here, this the the 10 things that we are saying we want to go back and talk about again so far or whatever it is.
Okay. Infrastructure. And this was largely just a reshuffle. And we didn't touch solar. Although eventually I do want to look at digital uh not digital billboards, but um electronic message centers.
and not you know they change the brightness on the senior center one it seemed to be a little quieter I think so that was I got blinded yes it was very bright I was so confused I was speaking of Chinese student I'd like to eventually change electronic
message center to trigger a special permit when it exceeds a certain size you know like having the gas station having to apply for it you know a special permit I mean that just seems Should it be like size and lumens and stuff like that?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Consideration large scale digital message center. It becomes almost a billboard at that point. Uh accessory uses uh we've already made the one change here but uh
anything else that got a lot with essentially regarding daycare that we did in that were added on to the plan. Daycare, if I recall, was something that had said was a do use, right? Yes. So, we can't uh
Yeah. I'm pro daycare. We can't say no, but we My kids are out of daycare now. I can be mean. But this Well, no, actually, we can't do that anyway. Never mind. I'd rather have roosters next to me than
a daycare. Having lived next to both. Well, the kids aren't there at at at, you know, sunrise going off, but you can't eat children. So, uh, okay. So, we're at the end tonight that I got to write down for you.
We're at the end of the use table. So, I'm going to go down to definitions. This will be a fun one. Nah, we we'll get we'll blow right through. You see that now? So,
so here are the definitions. I'll just highlight the the ones that are you can see the ones that are underlined. So those are new those were new categories that we've also included in the use table and it you know it's important to point
out with the benefits you know having you know these definitions were scattered all throughout the uh the plan or the bylaw. Now it's in one place. It's a large chapter, but at least now when you want to know where a definition is, this is where you go.
So, I'm thinking along the when it comes to outreach, I'm thinking along the lines of from scattered to logical or something like that. Maybe not logical, but better, but scattered has to be the
one of the points to talk about. Um, here are some again you can see some new uses that again we didn't have a definition of bank. Definition of bank. H
oh that's one of the least surprising things. Yeah. The definition says what what does it say? A bank or financial institution. That was just the title. Can a can a definition? Yeah. A bank is a bank. A bank is a bank. got to be better.
We put the little Mr. Monopoly man. Hold on. Hold on. Bug me. Okay. So, going through childc care clinic, common driveway.
Thank you for striking that section in the middle of common driveway where we had to spend 25 minutes talking about that. for that one project. Yeah. Yeah. Dog care dwelling top of the shop, but
we added uh top of the shop. I know Steve had this uh sentence at the end about it uh that the uses shall be allowed or you must cons anyway. It's getting late and I'm not saying it correctly, but you see it.
And we do the same thing for mixed use development. We have the child care definitions. Uh we put all the flood plane uh definitions in one place. Again, that used to just be in its own section.
funeral establishment, hotel, motel. These were all added uses. And then we certainly spent a lot of time talking about the long-term care facilities. This is where we've landed.
We added manufacturing light say you know looking back over this I think the biggest text changes you all made came to the uses because we just lacked so many of them and many uses that are actually on the ground were actually not allowed were not not
identified in our bylaw. So this is, you know, an this was a great opportunity to, you know, add those uses that are already on the ground or could be. You mean our bylaws didn't make sense and we should have recodified them? No.
No. And we have medical center mixeduse development. That's a new definition. And then we also added that similar to top of the shop that it's only limited to those that are as of right or by special permit in the use table.
Mobile home, mobile home park, motor vehicles, neighborhood shop. So, we did place a, you know, not greater than a thousand square feet, but we've moved this to accessory. Um,
wait, that reminds me. I need to Let's take a look at accessory structure. Did that have a size limit on it? I think it has a like a limit, not a limit, but a maximum that you can build without a permit. It
goes up to 200 square ft. You don't need a building. Yeah. Okay. More than 200. I need, you know, it's it's a whole section on going to 200. We have an a section on accessory structures. I'll look at that. Let me let me just
flag that and I'll just make sure that we're that it this is consistent with that definition. Paul, in your little uh not your little your presentation of benefits of this going from 100 to 200 for a permit is huge. We should have that.
Yep. People can build a shed without a permit. Correct. Or at least a little bigger shed. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, how many times does ZBA not be able to approve a, you know, a fairly small expansion on a
non-conforming? Did I center? Okay. And just for Steve, I did a Google what the Charlie Country store was. That was like 1,800 square ft. So that's like
twice as big as what we would be allowing. And is that a principal use include the second floor, right? That's just the first floor. Okay. But that was a principal use though. Yeah. No, it is uh I had it up here. Yeah, it
was like 52 by35. Okay. Not counting the There's a square off the back, but So, it's a good reference. I remember it being smaller. It was It felt small inside, didn't it? Oh, it did. There was probably more
stuff in the back where they kept all the Yeah. Yeah. freezer or something. Yeah. But, okay. Recreational facilities. research restaurants other than fast food, senior housing.
Wait, go back up, Paul. We need to strike other than a fast food establishment because we removed fast food establishment. The snowball effect is real. I know I'm here for a reason. That was
my one for this evening. I'm No, you've had a few. You can go home. Bye. You don't like McDonald's? No, no, no. We're We're not redefining McDonald's as a fast food restaurant. It's just a restaurant that may or may not have a drive-thru, but they have to ask for that
or just carry out. Now, if we can ever get a water burger here, water burger, that would be my dream. Furthest north they are. Paul can work on the tiff for them later.
Now we're making our way through. We added studio warehouse distribution and yeah with yard you remember the last meeting I moved those uh what's stricken here to um one of the standards making the dimensional table cuz that
was a standard here. This is the one that is how you measure it and that is that for chapter 11 article 11 section 11. One of the things that came up during the last uh town
meeting was we added a whole bunch of definitions and there was a sentiment thing that that should have been a separate thing alto together. Uh, so while I understand that sentiment, I don't necessarily agree cuz we need these definitions, but do we feel
comfortable with all the new ones and basically presenting them? I don't think you can separate them from because we added some of these to the use table. So, they can't the whole document to be together. Yeah. Yeah. Again,
that's how I would a lot of these I understand what you're saying and I I think that was just general. Yeah. I just wonder if it's an outreach point, you know, at this point. Yeah. And I would just if people have that concern, I would say look at the use table and identify
are do you agree where where we've identified where it can go because the, you know, a lot of these uses already exist on the ground. Some are emerging uses. Um, but I think the bigger point would be, are you okay with
the location of it? Yeah. And I'm just I'm just wondering if it's worth an outreach point saying like, "Hey, here's a list of all the ones we added because of, you know, growing growing needs and concerns and stuff that we added to the use tables, you know." Yeah. Is it is it worth
basically making it uh the definitions by themselves their own talking point before we get to the next town meeting? You know, I know that I know we have a huge crowd now, but um what would it be? We're trying to get a crowd in to talk about definitions.
Um, we certainly can. I mean, I've I've I've been working on some outreach an outreach presentation. I do identify that uses were a lot of uses were created and added to the use table, but primarily because, you know, the these
are typical uses you see in a in it. Um, but I think that's worth thinking about because I think this is again this is where you made probably the most significant text changes. Again, the great majority of these changes are moving and you know shuffling things
around, but between um adding some of this uh standards to meet some of the state requirements, it was here in the use table and the definitions where where you all made you know
I want to you know made the you know most number of changes most of these are fairly you know limited in scope but in in any regard where where you're allowing it to occur is going to be the
most crucial thing I think for the most part we're pretty conservative it's you know most things are staying out of the R zones and you know special permits and others and you know some instances by right. So
Paul, can you scroll up just to I know one of the ones that was mentioned was solar. Yeah, there we go. Um I know at town meeting there was discussion about the inclusion of
storage being included here and that um a resident objected to that. I know the history behind it, right? It wasn't. Can we just make sure that um it was viewed as a change? Um if the mass
general law section cited there includes storage, as Mr. Babrowski said at town meeting. Um if we can just have that as maybe just a backup a backup slide when we get to town
meeting to say yes this is a change. It is a change to meet existing state guidelines. We're not trying to and really the guidance is it's kind of
treated like a do use now. I mean, well, it's all sorts of screwed up, but yeah. Yes. But essentially, but yeah. No, I just don't There's not much regulation that you can do. Yeah.
That whole group of six, seven, eight homeowners is a uh anti- anything planning board block. So, well, you also come to like make friends regulating people just having batteries for any reason. Oh, yeah. Yeah,
I'll I'll look I'll I'll look at it. But that section under uh large scale ground mounted I there wasn't I don't believe there was any change but that's in the next that that section will also be part of our discussion at our next meeting
because that's under the special regs. Yeah. So I did flag it because Mr. Kalaniano pointed out about battery. So I identified the area there but I'll look at this as well to see. Yeah. Just Babrosski said this is how the state
defines it. Period. Right. We won't have him next town meeting, right? So to make sure that we're prepared for that talking point. Um that's kind of my only point there.
And would we be willing if to factor batteries? I mean I I if the state includes batteries, us eliminating it just means that whoever applies would fall back to the state definition and would be in the same place anyway. So from a practical
standpoint, from a project standpoint, makes no difference, right? But it's best to Yeah. Yeah. It does include storage. Yeah. So that's how Can we Can we suggest what
we'd like? Can we just like we'd prefer like flywheel energy storage instead of batteries? It's just our preference. If if you mind approaching us with that. Defer to the state law. Can we make that a not recotification time? We don't have to talk about this for
recodification. Yeah. But I will say battery storage right now is growing leaps and bounds. The technology that they're working on is significantly better constantly. Yeah. Yeah, if uh if Joe's going to come to a
meeting in the future and talk about it and we can have that discussion, Paul, you reach out to him specifically for the next meeting. I know you have before, but yeah, that's the one we and I do put this out on social media. Rob, thanks for listing it and Norton
neighbors and I go to several others and I did send an email out a few weeks ago to a handful of people including everyone who spoke at town meeting on this topic and gave them the schedule. So, but um with the next one coming up
with that was the focal point. I'll certainly make sure those folks are invited. Love to see them here. So before we um I no I would agree this is a frustration I have of people that love to reach out and fill my ears and all that but they
will show up for a freaking meeting and that's response I give to them like every time they come to me is come to the meetings don't just talk to me and you're looking at an empty room aren't you? No I'm looking at Peter still in Oh okay is still online with us. It is
frustration. I was actually kind of glad you jumped on me earlier, Alex, because I'm going to use that later. Look, he's right. So, so Paul, if we're good with the definitions, you want to talk about quick the uh about what we talked about
last week with the historic district commission. Yeah, I've um made a few changes. you recall when we met with them um they were concerned about you know we had a new project that that came in and where
you all landed what I heard was let's make sure that um before it even comes to you that there are um they should have their certificate of appropriateness signed off by the HDC
before you get it. So there's really three different types of permits that we get. You all get site plans and special permits. Of course, subdivision regs are not part of the zoning bylaw, so we can't touch that, but and also the ZBA has variances and a few other things. So
what I proposed to do in in the three sections covering those uh areas was to write essentially saying that if if you're within the historic district, you must get a certificate of appropriateness prior to applying. in this case to the ZBA or building
commissioner. This was under the section under variances and the uh other permits that the ZBA applies for. And I've done a I've done the same thing for the in the sections for special permits
that it's that if you're applying for a special permit, you need to you need to get your uh certificate. In fact, we're this week we will update OpenGV, which is the online, you know, our online permitting system, and put a note in all of the applications to say that if you're within the district, you need to
go there first. I think that's just an administrative thing. Um, but let's codify it here. And then, um, I also put it so this was under special permits. and then um just following, you know, the the format that Mark had. This is uh
putting it in the submittal requirements for site planning. So, I've sent this I sent this off this morning to the historic district commission. Um they're they'll review it and get back, but I I don't think there are any gaps in here other than having to acknowledge
that the subdivision regs are a different animal. Um but same thing we could still be mindful of if we get that that they would need to get a uh have to well depending on what type of subdivision it is I guess.
Yeah. I was say do we want this to say they need to have the certificate in hand before they apply? I know we want to like push them like get this far enough along first. I mean,
do they but I also don't want to say you're going to have to appear for the HDC four times in four different meetings over two months before you even come to the planning board and the planning board may say may want you to do things and you have
to go back and like that kind of is that too harsh to say you need the certificate in hand or Like I mean we could certainly modify this to to say that you shall at least apply. Um change it to like constructive approval
or something like that which is a well that's different than what Tim's saying. Yeah. No, I'm saying somewhere in the continuum of like do you need it buttoned up? Maybe not. But like they need to be on board what you're giving us. Okay. Before it gets to a point where you're
like asking us to rule. Um, so we could say a certificate shall have been applied for prior to, right? Yeah. I mean that Yeah. And the intent, I guess, is just to make sure that I mean, we don't tell people they have
to go to the conservation commission before they come here. They Right. Exactly. That's kind of what I'm It's the same thing. But we need And we kind of tell them like if we're going to close this, you better make sure you're all done with conservation before we do. Otherwise, you need to have us modify
it. We can. Yeah, I I was just trying to see if we could get ahead with that, but okay. So, we would just say shall have applied for a certificate of appropriateness from the district, I mean from the commission. If it's going to be they're going to go
before him, propose the HTC is going to give them some guidelines, some color between the lines rules in a meeting or two and it's not a significant lift maybe. But if it's going to be like if they're gonna have to go before them
two, three times to get this, then that's where I'm kind of Yeah. wondering how they do things in parallel. In in my mind, I'm thinking as long as they've applied, they know the rule. As long as they've applied, they know that they have to get the approval
before they we we're like they might get denied. So, as long as they're aware that that apply applying for it at least sets us up to know they are aware that they might get denied. I think now that it's in multiple spots and town staff's more aware for now, I
think it's a large step from where we were and it's it's fair to put it in conjunction if if they apply to the historic commission and to us even sort of at the same time at least the historic district can reach out to us. We can reach out to them. We might have
a joint meeting. I realize that changes all the things that you put in here. Paul, it's easy. It's simple to fix. Yeah, this last one I have is a little wonky. I'll work on it more.
Just just uh that's actually fine. I think you think okay don't be applied for any yeah so this is for the site plan okay and again this will align with us we'll
we'll make sure tomorrow or Thursday we'll update open gov I mean you know again we haven't had one of these in 20 years so I don't imagine there's no vacant land in that district so but still to be on the safe side. It's a simple thing. It's a simple
change. It, you know, hopefully the commission will be fine with it. Yeah. And we can map we can link to the historic district map so people can see it. So, if nothing else on that, I got one unoriginal idea about town meeting I
want to see at least throw out there. I have a few, but I this is an unoriginal thought. So I was watching another townstown meeting for something workrelated and how they handled it. So you know how you have the whole school board up there. You have the whole select board.
Well, if they handled it, whoever is proposing the article, the whole board is up there. So it's not throwing Tim and I'm not saying this just because I'm chair now. I will gladly I will gladly take a beating and a half for this. But I kind of liked it. They had everybody there. So last town meeting there was
three or four of us all sitting close to each other. Tim was taking all the bullets. Do we talk to the um talk to Jack and say, "Hey, if we're going to be proposing what I'm going to call controversial stuff, you people are electing us. I think we
all should be in front of them together, fighting it together. I think it might be better, maybe more persuasive. At least it's more than one face taking all the bullets. I'll take your opinions, but I saw it and so I had to mention it. I'm comfortable with that. I'll stand up.
I I've seen boards rotate at other town meetings, too. So, I'm fine with that. Like when their articles up, like they I figured I'd be speaking anyway. I just think it's a more unified, more, hey, you put us to do this. We're all here talking about it.
We're all here going to answer your questions. Again, I'll gladly do it. Um, I just liked it. It'll be tight up there in that corner. But whatever. Yeah, we we can uh figure that out beforehand. There's there's enough for all the
school committee that sits there. They don't always have a ton to say. If there's an article, if there's people that are going to be there that have nothing to say the whole time, we might as well have the full planning board that's proposing a major change to the town. Yeah. In front of the whole town that's voting on it.
And again, we can talk to Jack about it, see what his opinion is. I don't know if we want to mention it to the selectman or not. I don't think so. Or we can, but just an idea. Yeah, I liked it. I think it'd be Jack's jurisdiction, right? How we run town meeting. The
select board's just the date and time and place. I think might be an idea to we can talk with uh our intermager to see. I mean, that would be the probably the proper conduit. I mean, it won't be till the fall. It' be the new town manager.
True. Knock on. Hopefully everybody on board. Rob, you like that idea? Don't like that idea? I think it was great. Fine with that. I'm fine with it. I like the idea. So yeah, Paul, if you want to trickle that up the food chain. Um I'll gladly
mention it to Jack or you can start with um I'll talk with the chief. Yeah, talk with the chief now. So, so this is we just get up when we're presenting our article, but other than that, we don't have to sit down there in that row right across the front. No, I I would say let's if we're
presenting it, whatever articles that the planning board is putting before town meeting, we should all be responsible for it, not just one person. Okay. We would all stand up then. Yes, 100%. All of us be up front sitting, standing, doing jumping jacks,
whatever it takes. Absolutely. Okay. But I mean, for the duration of the meeting, we're not part of that panel across the front of the room. I don't think there's enough room anyway. But okay, we can work that out and talk about that.
I think we had only other than that conversation, Paul, there was one other item you wanted to uh bring to our attention. Yeah, just real quick. Um, as you know, we we approved uh MBTA. I'm not even going to
call it that. That's just Mmod. We approved MMOD back in uh the Maytown meeting. Um we're still it's currently under review by the state. They did email us last week. Had some questions. I haven't heard back, but I think they're going to get to us pretty soon.
But um during the time we were going through part two of of getting this adopted, we actually were approved for a grant um from the state to do design standards for the for this new district. Um as
it's now, you know, approved, um we were approved for about $54,000 and Serpent was willing to help work with us to do the design standards. The good news is as it's designed standards that's you have the ability through your regulatory
powers to adopt these as regulations not bylaw. So um this would be a much easier process. It's just identifying different aspects. We kind of started going in that direction anyway with village center core and then the changes we've u
are proposing with village commercial. But these would be kind of similar standards that we would like to see for any new development that came in as part of MMOD. So um I've spoken with Rob at Serpid and he's he said he can come in
at your first August meeting to just set the framework the of and the time frames of what this could be but um you know this isn't going to be a year-long process. Go ahead. Is this design standards that
need to be approved at town meeting? No, because it's your own regulations. It's like subdivision rags. Okay. Yeah, I was just thinking how do how does somebody applying for something know where know how to find them? That was kind of Well, we'd have to publish them. Yeah. Um we'd have to be online and make
readily available just like the subdivision rags are because they're not tied to the bylaw either. So, I mean, the subdivision, those also probably need to be looked at since they're scanned. Oh,
it's like a It's like a scan from 1978 or something. You think this recontification's fun? Dive into the subdivision rags. I have This is why I knew what it looked like. Yeah. So, that would be Springtown meeting at the earliest. I would say 20 27. We
could subdivision because you need smart people for that. You need like engineers for that one. Y it goes into like we need another grant. Yeah. if you thought recodification was wonky. But anyway, this will be a good
opportunity, I think, to help, you know, boost support, you know, and and the end result being a better project and especially since you would be approving it through site plan, this gives a little more teeth.
So, this is just going to be aesthetics, building form, massing, parking, paths. Okay, cool. Can I have the $54,000 do it? I think that would go against our conflict of interest. Uh,
need to take that training again, but I thinking that's not going to work. Um, if that's all set there, we have our next meeting on July 22nd. I know we have the minutes from tonight we need to review for then we have one Dean Street continued to then Paul, anything else
for that meeting so far? Uh, 260 South Washington. Which one is that again? That's the uh cold storage facility. They were waiting for a peer review or something. I believe it's right next to It's right next to
Spears, man. Uh, yeah, Spears. Okay. right next to peer review cold storage. Yeah, the peer review that's that's under that's been uh Pat's given us the comments on that and then um it'll be a longer discussion next week on or next
meeting on recotification because this is now that big section with chunks and chunks. Um but this is special regulations. I mean again a lot of it was just it shows up as a strike through underlined because it's been moved but
you know it's a it's a larger section so it may even be we go through a portion of it next week or two weeks. So, and then uh that electronic message center that's not next. We haven't set a
date for that yet, right? The sign we have on the one 14. Yeah, that one's going to be next. That'll be next meeting as well. Okay. So, this will be the example of why we need
to change electronic message center, but you're getting a special permit for a digital sign. just looking if you ever drove by, you'd probably go, well, they haven't built it obviously, but you just go, it's small. Why is this a special permit?
Why does this need extra review? Where is the sign? Oh, it hasn't been built, but the application's on West Main Street. 14 West sign. Yeah,
that's the one. Is this like a business sign or somebody just wants to put up one for It's already in open gov if you want to take a look. Yeah. Oh, I accident. What was that? I'm sorry. I said it is in open gov currently. So you can take a look at it. But that'll
be for July 22nd meeting. Other than that, unless anybody else wants to continue talking, the chair would love a motion. Motion to adjurnn. Seconded. Second. We have a motion and a second. Eric, yes. Tim, yes. Steve,
yes. Rebecca, yes. Ken, yes. Rob, oh, yes. Pretty home, but I sympathize for you guys. That was on purpose, though. I know. I enthusiastically push things along even.
Uh, meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Have a good night.