okay welcome everybody this is the Norton Planning Board's meeting of April the 8th 2025 uh again this is a public a hybrid public meeting so members of the public are welcome to participate in person here at the Norton town hall thank you everybody who's here as well as those
who are joining us in the Zoom meeting um the meeting will also be available on Norton Cable Access and the Norton Media Center's YouTube page for viewing after the meeting so I'll also add just for any future meetings for if you have questions for the board ahead of the meeting please
feel free to send them to Brian Carmichael town staff his email address is posted on the agenda as well so with that I'll call the meeting to order we have six members here in person and one member who is absent um we don't have any updates on planning
board business and policies to go through we do have two bills which I'll pass around for the members to review both of them are for postings in the sun chronicle related to this me this meeting for the two articles that will be presented at town meeting so those
you rock take a peek did you say you already had the articles that are going to get presented now these are the post the bills are for the fees for the sun chronicle to post the notice for this hearing that's all and then okay signs
are the physical plantings of the signs at the location yes and the signs which are physically planted at all the locations yes okay so I think everybody knows why we're here uh this is pair of public heating public hearings which are
discussion and votes related to town meeting articles the first one is for the MBTA community's zoning recommendation and the other one is for a recodification of Norton's zoning bylaw and zoning maps um we'll take them in that order in terms of order of
operations here um we'll do the MBTA first we'll go through a presentation have comments from any of the board members ask comments for any notice of property owners andorters and then we'll do general public comments after we
conclude those comments we'll close the public hearing the board will make its votes and then we'll move on to the second item on our agenda okay so with that out of the way we can move into our discussion here paul if you want to bring up the presentation here
um obviously if you've been following some of the planning board's meetings over the past year you may have some kind of context around the MVDA community's film um but we know that some of you may not so we do want to just go through this and just give
everybody a baseline of what we're talking about here in terms of what the bylaw does what it means um and we'll go from there so in terms of the overall presentation here um this is where we
are April 8th for the public hearing uh the completed article that is due for the town meeting warrant on April the 10th town meeting is May the 19th so yes it does takes 5 weeks as a cut off between when we vote on final language
to when it shows up at the warrant in town meeting so what is the this MBTA overlay district that we've been talking about so this is originally a state law which was signed by Governor Baker back in
2021 I believe it's all so Norton qualifies as an MBTA adjacent community the rules for adjacent communities meaning we don't have an MBTA station in town but we are adjacent to multiple ones that do um the requirement from the
law is that we create one zoning district which allows multifamily properties as of right meaning they are not subject to a special permit and while I get off my train of thought I'll just ask anybody who's on the Zoom meeting to please mute your microphone uh if you are looking to
speak you please use the react function in the Zoom meeting and you can raise your virtual hand and we'll see you and know you're looking to speak okay so um this zoning district that the law requires must allow at least 15 units per acre and it must be
at least 50 acres in total it does not need to be 50 contiguous acres but the total area needs to be 50 acres and it cannot be subject to age restrictions and must in theory be suitable for families with children um so it cannot
be an over 55 community or anything like that norton's target if you multiply 15 * 50 is 750 units in terms of the number of potential units on paper those must consider excluded land wetlands state on
properties um so the actual required numbers based on raw acreage may be higher so Paul if you want to go to the next one so what is not required doesn't require the town to provide the land or produce the housing it doesn't require
the owners of the land to sell their land to anyone it doesn't require the town to pay for any infrastructure doesn't require building types that don't agree with the city aesthetics and there's no requirement overall to develop uh the only the idea of the law
is to provide the opportunity to develop and potentially replace existing uses over time so more than half of the cities and towns in the state are required to comply um so we'll go stop there on that slide
paul the state does have a number of penalties for non-compliance some of these were written into the actual legislation and other ones are being considered by the department of basically state agency in charge of
housing and it's the EO HLC yeah of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities um but if you take a look away from what's on the page the state is swinging a very big stick in terms of compliance they are essentially tying
any kind of discretionary funding or grants that they have to being compliant with this law um we've even seen it written into requirements for firefighting grant equipment so NOR all these together uh NOR's
received a bunch of grants uh since 2018 you can see the numbers there um including one this current fiscal year the next slide you've seen a lot if you've been want reading the Sun Chronicle or the Globe or anything else recently um you have seen headlines of
other towns suing the state over what is potentially required from their parts um from the planning board's position the decision on whether the town chooses to take legal action against the state is a select board decision not a planning
board decision our job is to prepare a bylaw for town meeting um which we think meets the requirements and in theory can pass at town meeting um whether the town chooses to take action against the state not our
call we've been doing a lot of community outreach over the past several months especially after fall town meeting uh I'll say Paul thank you for I think most of the efforts on this list are all you um in addition to all the public hearings that we've posted on the issue
um obviously for the areas that we're going to be talking about a number of property owners and buyers were noticed uh we've al also been posted a number of businesses and community groups emails and any other thing we can think of short of carrier pigeons
so Paul I think you just wanted to give a bit of a background in terms of housing and kind of the background behind this law the the state's concept of this law is to in theory promote more housing development in theory more affordable housing development in net
and try and balance out from a supply and demand perspective right to try to uh try to get the supply to catch up with the demand so last week um many of you who were here remember Will Ratigan from Chapa he was presenting a lot of
information on on the Massachusetts uh uh numbers i just wanted them to show some Northland numbers more uh explicitly um and this I pulled from Zillow um within the last year the housing price the average housing price
was about $550,000 which is you know showing in this case a 6 1/2% increase over one year um along with that um will talked a bit about the population growth in
Massachusetts and that it had sort of flatlined in the last few years um when you look at Norton um since about 2005 we've stayed at a it's somewhere in the 19,000 person range we've never hit 20 or maybe just nicked it and then we're
still back below it but we've been relatively flat in terms of of population growth and along those lines corresponding with it since about 2010 our residential construction has been pretty slow um comparatively when you look at from the ' 70s in the '9s it
was really high and then um since 2010 it's it's at a low point since the 1960s so again that corresponds with a flattening of the population um he also showed a a couple of slides or this slide showing a couple
of homes he was showing the density i just wanted to look at and present what fiscal impacts developments like this could have on the town um and and what this is attempting to show is if these were replicated over an acre just what
the property taxes could be over an acre basis so if we look at the 378 Reservoir Street that's about a quarter of an acre and so in this year they paid about $8,400 but if you replicated that basically added three more of these it'd
be close to $30,000 an acre uh which is uh uh would be a pretty good increase compared to say an example here of this you know this beautiful home that's you know sold for over a million it's uh
they're paying about $25,000 in taxes which is which is quite a bit but it's 7 acres and when you divide that number by seven acres it's about $3,200 an acre um and these I just want to also show some
of the taxes of our three largest uh multif family developments you can see 274 East Mains about paid about 584,000 and you can see the others there and I'm only just trying to show that this is just how tax implications are
affected it doesn't account for costs of services this isn't saying that we want this type of development everywhere there's a right place for all of this but but to think in terms of if we were to get more particularly smaller types of multif family it could have a a
positive impact on our budget potentially i know after the last meeting you did send out some independent studies that different towns had commissioned that the boards have been able to look at as well right and it's uh we have we have
Dropbox back up and running and uh those reports are are in there thank you um so going back to the bylaw itself um what is proposed is an overlay district
so it does not touch the base zoning map that everybody has what an overlay district means is it sits on top of the zoning map and a property owner can choose to develop or not develop their property based on the existing zoning or
under the overlay they choose one set of rules or the other you don't get to pick and choose well I like the setback here i like this over here i like this over here no you choose one set but it also means that nothing on the existing zoning has to change at all
um approval would be by site plan and not special permit um that is part of the state regulation and that it's not subject to a special permit review site plan review is generally conditionally approved by the planning board we have
the power to put conditions on projects it is very challenging for us to for us to deny a site plan um when we do we are generally sued um in case anybody was wondering this is
not the TPC parcel that was presented at Falltown meeting uh that is not part of what we're talking about tonight uh the planning board is going to vote this evening after we go through all this on the final bylaw text and the parcels to
be selected um just by way of definition multif family in Norton starts at three attached units uh so a duplex isn't necessarily multif family triplex or a quadlex would be um and when we get to a town meeting the zoning text and the
parcels is going to be on one article combined so how did we get here uh after fall town meeting we went through a large public comment process including an open house event where members of the public put dots where they felt like
this type of project should be cited along with comments some of those comments being "I don't want it anywhere i hate this." That's also a valid comment um board members evaluated those properties along with comments from town meeting that whole process and that
whole probably year-long process at this point that we've been talking about this Um some of the criteria that we tended to settle on are areas where multif family dense housing already exists areas which might be in need of redevelopment or where development might
be challenging um this included reviews of parcel ownership as well as land versus building value metrics an example being if you had a beautiful piece of property and a tiny fixer upper that was about to fall down on it um a developer
would see a clear path to buy that property knock down the fixer upper and put something else in its place um and again if feasible one of the comments from the last round from the school committee and others was if it makes sense to potentially split some
of the overlay district between the two different elementary schools um if it made sense so the areas that were noticed for this hearing um we have the Nord and Glenn we have combination of Redm Mill
Village and 274 East Main Street which are just in one circle due to their proximity um we have Mansfield Avenue North excluding the TPC parcel are generally properties on the other end of the street from that other side of the street from that and up close to the
Mansfield line as well as 138 Barrow Street which is the former Twee Mill property so just a summary of what we've been talking about over our last several hearings we're going to go through all of these um the Nort and Glenn um if you
know the area you know that goes in feeds into the LG Northst um there this is currently occupied by 150 affordable housing rental units all of which do count towards our subsidized housing inventory that's under a contract with the state
through 2033 um this is under one property owner and one unified plan of development um but Paul just to correct me if I'm wrong this is currently non-conforming based on the existing use use and lot size and
it's currently commercial zoning or no it's residential 80 for R80 sorry yes okay and next slide here uh these are the Mansfield AB properties which we've noticed as part
of this process uh this includes properties all the way down towards the shopping center to the south and all the way up to the Mansfield line in the north including all of those multifamilies across from uh the golf course and everything else there um
these are all under a whole lot of different ownerships uh the lot sizes vary a lot um most of the industrial properties there are relatively new so in terms of what would happen soon I think there's a general feeling that nobody's going to be tearing down the
new electrical training warehouse that they just put up in the last two years um and as we go through this Paul actually if you want to go back to the previous slide I skipped over probably the chart there of the summary the Norton Glenn as we've gone through with
our compliance modeling with our regional planning agency is 25.2 2 acres uh with 150 existing units on paper if you built this out to the maximum capacity if you were able to build this out to the maximum capacity allowed by
the zoning you could in theory have 343 units which in terms of net would be 193 if you bulldoze everything to the ground and rebuild it from scratch and then if you go to Mansfield again the summary there all those
properties together are 32.5 acres there are 168 existing residential units the total potential net increase there is 313 and then if you look at those two combined in theory they do have enough
acreage and potential units to meet the Commonwealth requirement former Tweed Mill building this is currently vacant with a building of about 6600 square 66,000 square feet uh it is residential 60 zoning it's 25
acres with nothing on it um in theory if you put 405 units on it all that would be a total net increase um but there are a lot of challenges with developing on that site a there's no sewer b it's uh
there's a dam that needs repair and there's some other issues going on there um but it is there and again looking in theory combined with the Norton Glenn that comes just close to the 750 and Paul I
think that's just tight that's that's really really tight tight yeah okay and if we continue here look at Barrows and Mansfield they have combined they have quote unquote room to spare i
think as this board has shared over our past hearings um once we get into parcel selection we would in general try to pair down whatever parcels we're looking at to get close to that 50 acre requirement um opposite of prices right
rules get as close to the number as we can without going under and then we have Red Mill Village and 274 East Main Street here combined just on one slide um this is a mix of commercial and RA zoning all feeding
into the North Elementary School um Redm Mill Village specifically is 51 acres redmill crossing has been pointed out to us if you exclude that that's that is a little over one acre as part of that
uh two from 74 East Main Street is a little under 15 acres you can see all of the net increases there um and as some members have shared previously um there has been some feeling that because these
developments are new because they have are wellreceived they're generally pretty well filled um it would be challenging for a developer to come in and put anything else here with everybody already living there and being pretty happy um so this has been
proposed in some by some members as a proposal that would lessen the potential impact especially in the near term on on development within the town and again just numbers here of what
those two look like combined and some potential combinations they expect that we'll consider this evening um these combinations would generally meet the state requirement and we'll go through that in our formal vote at the conclusion of all the public comments
here um so and then just some of the highlights of the the text changes here um obviously they meet the requirements we wouldn't be making them if they didn't um the general concept of the
bylaws as we have designed them is they do include an affordable housing component they also include the potential for mixed use in terms of top of the shop developments so you could have a multif family property with a laundromat a pizza parlor or something at the bottom um they have a maximum of
three stories uh if you were at Falltown meeting we did have some other aspects of this bylaw which included the tendential for density bonuses and things of that sort those have been removed for this this round um and in general the
bylaw has been designed to allow the potential for smaller scale buildings rather than exclusively large buildings um again the board hasn't voted on that final language but just letting you know kind of a a simple version of what is on
the page right now um so again summary the state is requiring compliance by July uh with significant impacts on grants and discretionary funds which is the reason why we're trying why we're working on this um I think even people who are in
favor of promoting more housing development and more affordable housing development in town would say this bylaw probably would not be in front of this board if the state wasn't making us um again the requirement is only to allow the opportunity for development uh it
does not mandate construction and doesn't prevent de development or continuing use under the existing zoning if that's what the property owners desire um and again if multif family development is developed uh the requirements are designed to promote properties which encouraged mixeduse
retail as well as affordable units keeping Norton above its 10% affordability threshold which as we've seen over the past few weeks if you've been watching the select board zoning hearings does have an impact on 40B developments
so um now that I've tal talked for maybe 15 or 20 minutes I'll just go to any members of the board here if they wanted to make any initial comments at this point um before I ask for any comments from uh notice of owners of property owners
the state is making us do this try to be easy on us tonight why would they start now Steve okay anybody else laura I see your routine for going forward you just looking at the screen
not going for the microphone no I'm good okay um so I'll ask if there are any noticed Butters or property owners who'd like to come up and provide any comments for this meeting tonight um I'll keep an eye on the Zoom meeting if anybody has like to raise their hand as well um I
know I've talked to a couple people who wanted to come up and speak already um Paul I'm not sure if you know of anybody from I know we have a number of people from Red Mill Village here i'm not sure if uh any of the other property owners have let you know that they'll be in
attendance or No okay yes thank you Mr chairman orin Seagull 28 CI thank you i'd just first like to just start off to clarify what's on the table um I've been
to several meetings starting in March i've been away from this process for some time but starting then is when they selected the various locations to be identified and at that time it was my understanding you identified Redmill
Village uh and up until this slide you've shown for the first time have I seen Redmill crossing as also being included so I ask the board I I've seen the presentations that have been presented and if you look at those
presentations they identify a slew of properties including uh East Main Street as well as 40 uh to u village in addition to a cemetery in addition to crossing in addition to town own property without any distinction
identifying what specifically was included in those presentations the board vote to what was going to be noticed was referencing Red Mill Village at no time did they reference Redill Crossings and my question is apparently
um Serpent had included Rednill Crossing as part of their calculations but I don't know that the vote taken on March 11th um which basically just said village uh actually included rim crossing and I'd ask for some clarification by the board sure
understood paul did you just want to speak to the properties that were noticed and just I know we called it out specifically in terms of that slide yeah right so when the notices went out to hit the Butters which of course you receive
um crossing was listed was listed by both address and by parcel ID they were butters as well no no well they were butters but they were listed as a as a as a potentially impacted property the plan attached was the plan
I just described that didn't identify specifically the location of what was being identified it included the cemetery it included land owned by the town so I'm not sure clearly it is it to one of the letters so it didn't identify
it specifically as being an identified property the the notice the notice that went out included included Redmill Crossing it didn't include town property in the notice it's possible when we drew
the the lines like we had there it's possible that those got picked up because of their proximity but those were not where they I hope they weren't i have attached the plan that's the plan that went out with the notice yeah but
the notice is it includes Okay it includes a cemetery it includes that land i believe this is a town land by village excuse me yes all right so those properties were
noticed as potentially affected properties correct um but they weren't as I understand the media was not identified other than Red Mill Village i understand your point yes in that um and for the record Red Red
Crossing is separately owned while it was initially permitted along with Red Mill Village it was spun off it's not part of the condominium and it's separately owned thank you okay uh at the last meeting um before the
plan the finance committee and the select board I raised some issues that I I'll repeat again to the people that are here um one of the questions the issue I have is uh Revenue Village is selected and in looking at it I want to look at
the impact of really just selecting it for an overlay district all of the other properties including the Gillette Stadium by the way they're owned by one entity what does that mean so the existence of this
bylaw alone has no impact on the owners it doesn't impact their buyers or their financing when it comes to to those situations it's an election they they look to their buyers saying it's there you don't have to do anything about it
it's mere an election for you is a positive thing that's not the same thing for village we have 152 units and basically when we sell our units I don't I couldn't give you the numbers but a significant number of people buying our units are from out of
state so they would have never had any exposure to this mess which which arguably have said if you lived in Massachusetts you probably heard about it and probably doesn't impact you so we have people coming from out of state and while it's not typical to look at um
overlay districts and be concerned about it when you look at Redill Village I think it's a different issue uh for for us let me step back a second um I've only gotten late to this radio rodeo recently trying to
understand this process you guys have been working upon it for over a year uh and and your impressions of what it means and how how to affect it have gone from one end to the other um ultimately when asked questions I I
myself had to go to the state twice once regarding its exclusion for 55 and over and the other for basically exclusion of conservation area both of which was were head scratches in terms of the response um ultimately I've asked
questions of this board and of the of the planning director and I the answer I got was we relied on stur stur and pad to eval evaluate this strange formula and come up with the solutions and we were relying on it and I would just point out to this board that in doing
the last town meeting the tapes of the last town meeting it was apparent that our town council said um not that you can't rely on this stupid because this is some is open to interpretation the final arbitrator of it is the state so
whatever you're saying now is you think is gospel and is relying on sturd is something that's not yet been determined and won't be determined until the state ultimately signs off so with that as a background I'm now looking at dealing with a buyer is coming to my location
reading my bylaws and it says with a certain percentage of the by of our of our community we can do we possibly can do it with age restriction for for the age of the ch children or age ourselves we basically
done it before we reduced um our ability from 50 from 55 to 50 with certain restrictions so that's open so someone looking at our bylaws can look at that and saying is that something that applies to us now without having
responded to my question on on Redill Crossing that that that clearly has a definite impact on us red we have a a vested interest in Redill Crossing we share easement with them in terms of its parking we gave up part of
our parking to facilitate their use of that property we allow them to park on Harding on Harding Way so the fact that this is a standalone and regardless of what Redill Village does Redill Crossing can elect this overlay district and with
it can add probably 15 units above their existing retail use now that really impacts us significantly and that's something a for parking a for traffic and b for visibility and that's something that works just for the
overlay district alone might be argued that well you really don't have to tell people what it is that they can look for themselves but when you couple in the impact of a red mill crossing I think there is becomes a duty to disclose that and I and I'm happy to try to relate
that to serpent but no one's going to answer my questions as serpent as to how that applies so when you say well Red Bookville it's the implication of the O overlay district in and of itself is not spread equally those people again those
people that own it can say it's great or it's not great use it or don't use it we don't have that option and for us that's a detriment and a possible impact on our ability to sell our units which is something this board and the town needs to consider
uh back in December in response to the town's mandate I guess to this board and I I don't envy your position i understand it uh I think you guys have been trying desperately to to reach some position that that services this town
but in any event in December you held an open meeting uh little stickers and postits to try to get the town in response to the the need expressed at the town meeting to get the input from the town now I've heard this board on a
couple of occasions referring to the fact that Redville Village was sixth on the list i looked at those plans and those maps and that's not correct redville Village is not listed at all on those dots
[Music] the properties that are listed with a dot are East Main Street property that that I believe is owned by the family of Allet Bridge and the property immediately chases to
495 uh I think there were 54 the total score was Glennville uh Norton Glenn 54 mansville Avenue is 70 tweed that's the Barrows property 12 and 123 4956 none of those six touches Redm Mill
Village [Music] interestingly enough all of those other properties that are listed as primary are all capable of some development so the argument at that point at least in everybody's mind was they weren't
necessarily looking for red mill village suddenly it's changed but what else has changed since that time um ideally there's a lot of confusion regarding this and the fact that the the
instinct of everybody in town was let's reject it it's the state wants it and they're not mand they're mandating it it's not going to be good for us let's just reject it and that's why you got the response you had and probably rightfully so just because it was so
misunderstood and not understood at the full meeting so they rejected it i think coming back they they came up with these locations but since that time there's been this I don't know whether it's a ground swell or something that I haven't
seen but there's a lot of social media suddenly saying well we can do this but let's put it on a place where we don't think it can happen without regard it to the impact that it might have on us by really identifying us as a location but what what's happened since
then what information did people have then that they don't have now that they have now well we keep talking uh and still going on on some websites that we're talking about adding 750 units to
this town that's just blatantly not true each of these locations except for Baby Barrows which wouldn't be done by itself applies for um a net a net increase there are existing units there already
so it's never been 750 it won't be 750 so that's not true um he's not here now but at the last meeting before the planning board the select board and the finance committee
there's a presentation by Chapo which is an organization i don't know what its abbreviation stands for but it's related to housing it's a nonprofit organization and they went through basically these locations and they also it was very it was interesting to me that for the first
time I got an understanding of the types of properties that we're really talking about and they and they indicated the properties that that really are are geared to this type of development are focused to older adults students
graduating local teachers first responders small businesses is first-time homeowners young professionals unlikely is the school age enrollment significantly changed and they they would he was responding to surveys of of various towns throughout
the state he also said provided uh analysis of of various towns several towns that had done a professional analysis of the cost effect of these types of of improvements in town and he
indicated quite clearly that there was a net positive impact which means you get more then you lay out um that's something that's that's the absence of any of the discussions I believe that's been that's been had before before that
meeting that I've heard from this board or my understanding is on social media granted I'm not on social media i'm just getting information thirdand but that's my understanding uh and and as far as and he had and basically I
guess he's presented the the data supporting that which technically I read but I can't understand but at any event the information the factual information we have before this count is now that the net impact on the on on these types of
developments a uh will not be significant will positive and two will be not significant in terms of school enrollments and then in looking at that I I I I was struck for the first time was I was trying to understand uh what I could see
that really supported that and then I looked at East Main Street that's the that's the property of the 40 project at 274 East Main Street immediately by and uh through through Paul uh I we keep check with the the school department we learned that there are 29
students in that development that development has 188 [Music] units that means that basically only [Music] 15.14% of the population is is is using
that is going is is is school age [Music] student and interestingly enough if you apply that to the the taxes that they pay of
$589,000 that comes out to $20,310 per student um it's been reported here that the student population the students cost 17 to $18,000 i've been
informed my someone thinking to me that we get taxes of approximately $5,000 so basically it relative to East Main Street the town's making a profit of close to $8,000 per student uh is that
the end all is that going to be for everything i can't tell you it is but I'm just saying that replicates what this other surveys show that's the evidence we have we have fear we have a concern we have this desire not to increase
taxes but we don't have evidence this is evidence to support the position that you know of all those concerns we have the type of of buildings that we're going to anticipate in this type of transaction is not going to have a significant impact on the school
population and in fact it's chances are will be net positive to the town that's new i don't know how that's being communicated to the rest of the town but it's certainly news to me as of last week so and and and basically we've been
under this umbrella of it never can happen it shouldn't happen it's going to be devastating to the town which apparently there's no real evidence to do that from what I could see think about the town itself uh he hurt me as early as last week well we're
concerned that the there's going to be a water shortage we don't have enough water to be able to be able to sustain this type of development it's my understanding in talking to people on the Water and Sewer Commission that's not the case and perhaps there's somebody here who could
uh confirm that but that's another element that was scaring everybody and that was thrown out all along and saying we can't do this because it's going to we don't have the we don't have the water supply right we don't have the greatest water but we have water supply i was going to say Nick is talking about
the water i I didn't go there but we have water um schools as reported uh schools have been declining uh in the last uh 10 years it's
down in the last 20 years it's down 836 the last 10 years it's down 230 223 students it's a declining population so that you know will will increasing it um necessarily increase more taxes make
it more expensive probably but we have a declining population the town itself is fairly stable but over the last few years the basically the town population from uh 2019 to 2023 four years decreased by
802 people what does that mean uh we have a declining population a declining student population the library has previously been sort of descertified and still runs for funding every year uh there's a threat every year the teachers layoffs the fire station
closing um and then we find out we lost a nationally recognized supermarket and then we lost um the Leard Street property that's a key location the corner of Leonard Street at 123 was was geared for the last seven
years to be a retail property and that and that speakers that's a a major major location and the fact that we had a significant developer unable to find any retailer willing to come into this town any significant retail and ended up
forcing this board to to leave to to let that that obligation go and instead put in the warehouse they denied it went up to the courts came back down they were allowed to do it so what am I saying i I was I
mentioned this more before um in my former life I was a real estate a commercial real estate attorney as part of my my career I was a vice pres vice vice president and senior real estate council for a national
retail chain from my perspective other than donut shops pizza plazas gas stations and maybe some business places national retail tenants do not look to go into towns with these type of issues and so
we're sort of we're trying to shut off new development residential development but residential development is the key to attracting these other retailers and it doesn't make any sense so we have an opportunity
to actually enhance the town and bring in more people that is when I left just a reminder that everybody please check that your devices are muted when
you're not ready to speak thank you oops we have in this town s is sitting on two former commercial properties with major disrepair one is the Ron Barton building which is a different story and the other one is the tweet building um in addition
to that we have buildings at along Mansfield Avenue and Norton that are 50 to 60 years old and so rather than taking an opportunity and and going along with with as as ownorous as people might
think that might be with the state requirement we're trying to just stick a finger in in their ear and say not not here but why but why um understand the main difference between what we have now in terms of
commercially zoned areas is the requirement of a special permit all this does is take take away that responsibility that obligation and what does that obligation mean for us i I call upon the board and ask what's the
percentage of cases that you've denied that have gone to litigation that have supported your denial and I would venture to say you have to scratch your head to find any so basically we have a special permit process that that yeah it sounds nice that every time the the town
manager comes up and say don't we got to support this property don't worry there's a special permit they'll protect us and these guys try to do that but my guess is our our experience with the state and the courts is probably replicated what's happening to other
towns so so we're giving up something that really isn't worth that much in terms of its real practical solution so having said that let me just take a look because nobody else has and I don't think there's anybody here from any locations but let's look at some of
the other locations that we're talking about norton Glenn 25 acres one owner it it's a section 8 which requires which well first of all the property is I believe 50 to 60 years old if you if
you're familiar with it it's all rental property and it's a bunch of individual properties located on acre sites um it is a section 8 which expires the obligations expire in 2033 it is 100% affordable which means
all of their properties are are counted to the affordable uh qualifications needed to the for us to meet the state to keep away what are called 40B housing 40b housing is a a statemandated process allowing for affordable housing where it
lets the developer develop a property and they have to designate a certain percentage of those units not all of them i think it's anywhere from 10 to 25% uh as being affordable so with that they get a huge amount of waivers uh and
basically anybody opposing those waivers has to go up uh through their agency all and most times they're just denied uh we spent a lot of time in village opposing the property at uh at 274 East Main
Street uh and the number of waiverss that they were able to secure was just amazing so with with the with this uh section 8 we're being removal being removed we're probably close I think someone mentioned we're close to having satisfy the 40B
requirements at this point that's adding 100% back that's 150 units back in so whether that happens in 2023 or I just heard noises that the federal government was cutting back on section 8 funding maybe that happens even before then but
what happens then they've got old properties that are 50 60 years old that can't really generate a lot of revenue they can sit on it it'll be a nonconforming use good luck with what they can do with it well they're going to tear it down now if I were them and
and and now I have 100% less 40 40b satisfaction I would put a 40B project there we have so we have the option of basically designating that property as an MBTA property which as he said be as they pointed out is limited in scope is
limited in size three stories and had we have some control over as opposed to a 40B project by way of example the project that just went in next to what used to be the Roach Plaza on Main Street is
um it's 100 100 units on 4.52 acres the equivalent of 22 units per acre in addition to which it's in a zone that allows for threetory units it
built five stories so what we're looking at in terms of Norton Glenn is the prospect of a 40B housing going there as opposed to something we can control and something that's going to happen and something that should happen i mean it's it's as
as you can see with several of these they've selected uh properties at the edge of our town uh so supposedly not having much visible impact on them but regardless they're 80 year old they're 60-y old properties that should be rehabbed and should be rebuilt built
with but we're not looking to them the other one that that I want to address is Mansfield Avenue it's 32.5 acres now to come up with the 50 acres because there's so many units it's very easy to to carve those off so if you're
using Norton Glenn with 25 acres um obviously at least 7 acres of that could be carved out and just interesting to look at the the configuration there's 32 lots 16
forplex and basic if if you you're looking at these properties from the bottom up the first property on the list was at 185 East Main Street which is the new development that's a 40B project again that that was 4 1/2 acres with 22
units so if you if you took that as 4 1/2 acres it's a budding property is 2.7 acres then from there on there are 16 different parcels that look like they're half acre or less which would constitute maybe a
total they have 14 acres but those that are two that are that are um two half acres or less you're talking about units that have four units on them and half an acre would be half of 15 would be seven would be six so you're talking about at the best maybe adding two more units on
on those properties 16 of them three to two units is 32 to 48 students but what are you doing up again those are all built in
1966 so what what is the town looking at and and beyond that um they they have a slew of properties contingent going forward they could took a look look at any of those and par back they don't need the 32 acres so they can they can limit those to 25 acres maybe add a few
more as an alternative they can look at East Main Street which is 14.5 and so between just those forplex units and the other two units themselves you come up with 28 units which together with Ben build would satisfy the requirement
sorry I don't mean to put a time limit on you do you have I'm okay sorry i think I hope I speak for myself at this point so I'm asking for a little more no don't do that that's fine no I was just wondering
um misinformation still circulates and I suggest it motivates the call to kill or at least loot to this program it's kind of sad um I think this community and this board has a duty to educate and
make more decisions based not on this information as I said I I came to this process late i've been involved with it maybe a month but but to my astonishment within that
month the first meeting I attended somebody in the audience got up and literally called somebody on this board a liar within the next week um somebody there was a speaker invited to speak
and they were I would characterize as it as as attacked um for using the word we inappropriately attributing the same to some of the nefarious connection with the state since that meeting I was advised
there was some social media contact that talked about another member of our boards as sneaky which appears to be a projection on that writer's part who goes on then on to allude that the MVA programs are
providing illegal housing after a member of this board clearly indicated it had been the public deposition despite his frustration in not being able to do not be able to indicate it was a problem in addition that same writer kept on as
as has been repeated several times saying we're looking at 750 new presidential units which is not the case out of respect for this town and its residents could we please attempt to
have a fair informed and honest discussion without the vitrial and name calling this board clearly has a difficult decision but the question becomes should it be based on this information or rather see if it it has
its obligation to inform the public of the facts and the proposed reasonable workable solution that truly is in the best interest of this county thank you if you don't mind I'm just going to ask I don't mean to ask you to speak on
behalf of Red Bull Village there's many people here who can speak on their own behalf if they like but in terms of put down notes here as you were speaking um one of the questions um that I think some people may be asking I think you've talked about it with Paul and has been
back and forth but in terms of I had said in the presentation that and Paul you can just provide clarification here in terms of the state requirement says that the overlay cannot be limited to 55 and over obviously Reno
Village currently does have an age restriction so the difference being that the overlay would not but as it currently sits the properties that are under the condo association I use the wrong word apologies those are subject
to the the condo docs and those do have the age restrictions so those are judged separately that's correct and as I said those are subject to a vote of the association to modify those restrictions yes um in terms of the delineation in red mill
knowledge and bread crossing i think that is something that as you spoke last week and as I think we'll continue to speak today if that I think there's concern about Redm Mill crossing more than potentially Redm Mill Village proper in some in some
cases i would say with the introduction of Redmill Crossing our duty of disclosure gets magnified significantly i'm not saying the other one doesn't is not important but I'd say with that inclusion it our duty and its impact on us
increases significantly from a board perspective I'm not asking for a formal vote at this point but in general do the members feel like we would lean towards excluding Redm Mill Crossing if this parcel were to be selected is that
general if if Redm Mill proper meets the requirements then I'm fine with excluding any other parcel my proposal was specifically Redm Mill Village and these main apartments so um you know and never even mentioned red
crossing i'm not sure how that came in conversation but yeah so from I think you've seen from pretty much every head on the board that as before we're not looking actively to include counties in that property necessarily
okay i think we should avoid it i mean nothing we should so regardless of whether they were noticed correctly regardless of how it was initially voted I think tonight the board is going to vote and we're saying that we're in all likely not going to
include that par those parcels okay um yeah and I won't ask you to speak for everybody in Red Mill Village cuz that's impossible um that's true from but obviously you do talk to your
neighbors um do you feel like the people in Red Mill Village understand what we're talking about do you think that they and do you think that they understand the plan do you
think that they don't care do you think that they hate it do you think that they're going to show up to Tommy he's an angry mom or somewhere in that let me let me just say this i I I've lived in village for 20 years and I've never seen this kind of
outpouring at any event other than not even our annual meetings and I I I applaud them for talking with their feet so to suggest that they don't care and I would I would if you're asking me I can't speak for them but I think they
care not necessarily for River Village but for this town we've got people here that are on boards that work with the town that work at senior citizen this the senior center that have a real feel for this town and we're not sitting here said not my not my backyard i think from
my perspective it's more this this board and this town do we just sit there listening to misinformation and say everybody's upset about it therefore we can't do this because it's going to hurt us or do we take a stand and say we got to understand this and I think that's from my perspective what motivates me
more so than if especially if you're taking out the Red Cross and I agree that that that certainly would would blow this up for us but by by and of itself it sits there and it becomes it is still a problem because we do have the ability to do away with that and as
I said before given the status of this country with regard to uh Social Security Medicaid Medicaid in 10 years what those programs are going to look like and how that change might affect the value of our property whether or not we then want to look to change it um I
think the town ought to be concerned because without a shovel without putting a shovel in you're going to add 152 units and I'm not saying that but that's a reality uh so but we're concerned in having to explain that to people coming from out of town it's still a problem
and all I'm saying is there's so many rich things this town can do to take the opportunity that's there to improve the town and improve those sites that are desperate for improvement to just say we want to stick it in the in the ear of the state because they're asking us to do something but what they're asking to
do doesn't really impact us we're giving up site we're giving up a special permit traa tell me when that's been impacted it hasn't been and to do that they want to just let let's throw it let's throw it away and I think for me that's more important than the specifics of Red
Village yes or no would these people come out the question you should ask is would these people come out to support another project speak for myself I would i can't speak for the rest of them but I suggest I've never seen this kind of outpouring and I and I suggest it's not just because it's not in my backyard
it's because of concern for this town thank you republic your publicity for the next annual meeting of the Red Village Board then uh no thanks okay i just want to make sure I understand so you're maintaining that if
this did get built in Norton microphone yeah you're maintaining just make sure I understand that this got built from Norton there really is no financial burden on our water systems our budgets our schools anything you you No I'm I'm saying there's evidence and there's probably someone here from the water
department that will confirm one it's not impacting the water department we've gotten evidence that it's going to have no financial impact i can't say that nor can you say that it's not going to have impact on us i can't say it can't have impact on you but the evidence you have in front of you that's been presented
calls out something different than you've been arguing and I somebody there's a reality that somebody's got to get their hands around okay which evidence are you referring to the evidence proposed by chap i think he's referring to the report from Mansfield and the other towns that they receive
and you feel those towns are very similar to Nor i didn't say they were i said I just wanted to clarify that um they may be i'm not sure they will or not mansfield maybe not but they but they they've they've undertaken that process and from my perspective when I
looked at the town the the a comparable location in town I found that to be true $20,000 versus $12,000 that's what we're getting from D Main Street and that's contrary to what everybody else has been saying come on i think I think we have
we do have studies that on paper show that there's a potential net tax increase to the town those are studies and they're on paper they're still worth looking at but we also take in other pieces of evidence from the finance committee from the water department from
the school department and all of those things so there's definitely more than one data point to consider at any one point so correct in my own sources i did speak to people on other boards and all um I don't want to sit here and get in a
long argument with you but I do not agree with you that um this does not have impact um as a matter of fact notice um you're very concerned about it landing on Red Mill Village so you are concerned about impact i I basically I'm
concerned about impact on this town the impact is a negative impact in terms of not doing what that would be do you think it's bad for this town if they avoided having to build anything to help the state out i think it's a I get to speak i don't want to get
into a crisis do you feel that though i just saying so you feel that it would be better for Norton to get this bill i'm feeling it's an opportunity to encourage development where it should be
developed and very little or practically positive impact to the town that's what I'm saying but your goal then is yes we should build this because it'll benefit our town i I we we should we should yes or no question sir in the future we'll do questions through
the chair now thank you um is there anybody else in the room from a noticed property owner or a butter who'd like to speak uh I do see a hand in the back sir if you'd like to come up um and also do it another sorry if you wanted I'll just say again if
you're on the Zoom meeting you'd like to speak the react function may look like a heart at the bottom of your screen if you'd like to raise your hand please go ahead and I'll try and go back and forth between in person and virtual as uh as best we can here uh excuse me good
evening my name is Howard Wensley three Flint Lane Norton resident of Redmill Village and I've been a resident uh there now for 9 years my concern at this particular point as noted by Orin is not
so much as uh what we can't do but what we can do i've got a very real concern that the board is looking to thwart the intent of this law to say do everything they can so that these additional units cannot be built i think that is very
wrong uh there is need for housing we had a speaker at the last meeting who indicated that she was from Norton and was still living uh with her parents uh because she was unable to afford to live anywhere else affordable housing is
necessary it's needed we can't stick our heads in the sand and say it's not necessary um I was a little bit concerned that uh at the last meeting uh we kept hearing uh has been resolved today but uh Red Mill crossing was not
involved uh tonight all of a sudden yeah well maybe it was maybe we made a mistake but uh I I see you making a lot of mistakes here uh you have uh Redm Mill Village has 51 something acres uh
18.2 of those acres is restricted land conservation land uh I heard at the last meeting well we can move those acres someplace else uh where are you going to move the uh endangered species turtles that are on
that land i don't think you're going to be able to move them any place else they're not going to move and we're spending about $10,000 every 3 or four years to take care of them um because of uh our
commitment uh to the environment um I also want to reiterate that I've got concerns that you did not give further consideration to Norton Glenn again you have your head in the sand you
have the opportunity here to look at future development which is going to happen no question about it in eight years when the uh rent restriction of that property disappears it's currently owned by Windgate Development windgate
Development is a for-profit company uh a national real estate development company when the uh 8 years are up they're not going to sit back with that vi valuable piece of property and say we're not
going to do anything with it this is your opportunity right now to control the development on those 25 acres and you're giving up that opportunity i think that's a very big mistake um I also think unfortunately Redm Mill
Village was caught with our pants down so to speak in this particular issue because we were not fully did not fully understand what the process was and what was going on and did not get involved sooner in uh this process because I can
guarantee you had we understood what was going on you would have seen these numbers at your earlier meetings uh and again I do not believe at least coming from where I'm talking about it's an envy situation because in my opinion the
bottom line uh effect on on red mills is is going to be minimal but but that's not what the issue is the issue here is not providing housing for people that need it and I I think again that uh this board and the
other boards that that may endorse this proposal are not where they should be they're not providing the opportunity for people to come and live in Norton uh but for some reason maybe people don't want to live in Norton maybe that's why the uh
population is declining and uh I think that you have to look at that why is the population declining and what you can do to increase it along with a property tax uh base which uh needs to be increased thank [Applause]
you and I'll just add that to the point about the other properties that's what the board is going to do this evening we have not voted on what properties are going to move forward to what we submit to town meeting that's what we're going to do after we close the public hearing tonight so the Glenn and those are
properties we highlighted those are all still up for discussion by this board tonight um Paul did you want to just restate kind of the process behind the restricted land it's um in terms of but essentially the the net impact is that
no you can't build on restricted land and we know the turtles aren't going to get out of the way but but the model that the state developed which I at points lovely called the spreadsheet of doom allows for the density to be on the
other areas transferred basically theoret all the theoretically and again we we this law does not um supersede environmental regulations you can't get any more strict than a conservation restriction so that'll always remain
intact as long as that conservation restrictions there and the wetlands are there and the environmentally sensitive lands are there if I could just you have a followup sir yeah I correct uh one of your one of your slides I'm sorry uh one of your
slides stated that the land cannot uh must consider excluded land and what I'm not what I'm hearing now is well maybe it can it must it doesn't the state wrote it so it makes no sense
well I understand that but uh that's what's in there and my reading is it must consider excluded land excluded land is at 18.2 2 acres yes so you can move it someplace else yeah correct and that's and that's why we run everything through the regional planning agency to make sure that our tees are crossed and
our eyes are dotted um from that perspective I think as Orin mentioned SER the state is the final rule not sered but the state law basically requires that we go through SERD to run the compliance model and from there
it'll be given the the final approver from the state um I see another hand in the back there sir if you don't good evening and and I wanted to thank you guys for your willingness to serve on this planning board i trust
that at times it's not an easy task if you could just say your name and address for the record please sir i'm sorry my name is Frank Sonata my name is Gerard Kates and I live at Redmill Village thank you and I've I've 34 years in Attelboro and now three
years in Norton this was Adel has the uh the uh a board i'm not familiar with town meeting and boards like this so uh but I I rise here today to make a proposal of cooperation i'm with I'm a
member of I live at Redmill Village and I want you to know that we're very friendly cooperative and very generous people and let me just say that I suspect this board is very accustomed to receiving
resistance to your proposals that might be characterized as not in my backyard and it's been mentioned already but that's not why we're here today i submit that the large number of people attending from Redm Mill Village are
here not for that reason we're here because we're baffled by a proposal put forward by your committee or by your board to place Redm Mill Village pretty much as a
placeholder not to someday potentially increase the supply of housing but for the sole purpose to make it appear that Norton has complied with the state mandate i mean I heard someone say that the other night and they
actually admitted that on this board and I will say that that is uh not unique to Norton foxboro famously put the overly district over Gillette Stadium which is okay but yes you know if two if a person jumps off a bridge you don't have to
jump as well uh and so we're baffled really by that as some of your board members of I've just said have publicly admitted that they expect and actually hope that the land will never be developed for t
state intended purposes so in preparing for this meeting I'm aware that this board put forward another property in the past and and uh I would have now become aware that the town meeting of course turned
that down and you should know full well that because of the negative response from Redm Mill not because it's not in my backyard but because it just doesn't seem to make any sense that because of the negative response from Redm Mill
Village and our willingness to take action we could attend the next town meeting and possibly vote down any proposal that would include Redmond Village that is certainly a possibility yes so given our preference to support
the future well-being of this town and I say that sincerely that we really do care for the well-being of this town i propose that the board put forward a reasonable and workable
solution to satisfy the state and at the same time actually provide additional housing isn't that the whole purpose if that if that is done now I can't speak for everyone at Redmill Village but I pledge to work in concert with my
Red V Red Mill Village neighbors to attend town meeting and help you approve any proposal you put forth that is reasonable and workable we Redm Mill Village is a group of 100
Norton voters we can be a force well I'm saying 100 it's 152 but maybe they order all the 10 you're underelling yourself sir well I was in sales and I never
overpromise uh so so really I do pledge i really know my neighbors and they're very generous and caring people we are 100 or maybe 150 plus voters we are a force that can help
you use us don't abuse us thank you additional comments from the room i don't see anybody else from Zoom i see two people there whichever one of you'd like to come up first or whoever want to wait in line i've got one in i know who's next so
uh somebody in the Red Sox head is much happier after the past week and a half than ever after the first week of the season good evening uh my name is Hans Heinson and I live at uh 6port Lane uh in Red Mill Village um I just want to relay a
short story in um which for me really um brings home this issue that we're trying to communicate tonight my wife and I volunteer at the uh food pantry corn food pantry over at the senior center and Monday was our distribution day and
there was a gentleman that I was helping at the food pantry who um came in and he had a big raincoat on and had a dozen plastic bags and I asked him why he had all these plastic bags he said "Well I
don't want my food to get wet anymore." And uh I said "Well you know we'll take it to the car and you know and help you with it." And he said "Well I don't have a car." Right so where do you live now remember uh the senior center
is over on Mansfield Avenue this gentleman lives by the golf course okay uh on Oak Street it must be 5 miles okay to get there this gentleman walks from
that from home to the pantry to get food every two weeks and then have a hand cart to put the food on a hand cart to go on streets that have no
sidewalks okay back to his home i could not live with this i said to him "Don't worry i'm going to take you home." I took him home but two weeks from now he has the same problem and the issue is he
can barely afford the rent that he has in his house he has a he took a lady into his house who has MS because she was basically going to be homeless and he didn't want her to be homeless so I think people are blind they don't
think that this community doesn't need help in areas of housing and just livability so I urge you to think a little bit beyond selfish interest of my
own taxes my own this my own that and think a little bit more about your neighbor and what you can do to help your neighbor because we we we think we're a Christian nation but increasingly as I look around this country I don't see a lot of Christian behavior so I urge you to please
consider the needs of people and not perhaps your own selfish needs thank you i know we have another person over there in the on the left there sorry my left your right i'm really a Patriots fan i just wore
for a dollar hot down at Alberto Friday my name is Fred Williams lived in Norton same house 17 Kensington Road and uh for 54 years October 10th so I've seen ups and downs
and all that my biggest thing and I sort of let this whole thing escape me until tonight is Redmill crossing the proposed new No it's already in existence
okay so then I have East Mansfield that's the the uh condos or apartment building and we have revenue village 55 and over 50 and over now they want to take William Street and go up that all
those buildings are there already the way the map looked so just the delineation between Red Mill Crossing is essentially think Kelly's Place oh that's right that's Kelly's Place right so those parcels are the
differentiation between Red Mill Village and Redmill Crossing oh okay what we're proposing here has nothing to do with any proposed development that you have seen at the rodeo property or anything else it's completely separate i was trying to get get it figure out what
you were actually talking about you know the location i thought it was a separate location the access to it was that way now if you want to pull up the map again just to uh an inside 16 so what the
state requirement is is to put together an overlay district so basically put pick areas in town where a developer could put multif family properties if they bought a property and if they wanted to if they bought the property
and wanted to develop it that way okay um these are the properties that we noticed for the bylaw to go to town meeting so there any change to the zoning map or the zoning rules it needs to go through town meeting so
all the the rodeo property or any other properties that you've seen proposed um that's through the state 40b program um when the town when towns are under the
state regulation of 10% of their units being affordable by the state programs uh that's when essentially a 40B development comes in all horns of blazing with and plows through any roadblocks it finds we we've been up and down on Newman Street so I understand
completely yeah thank you but that's not what we're talking about here right can you tell us how many people are on the Zoom call uh let me see right now there are 25 participants but I'll you take away probably half of the people up
here behind the desk here just so I can see if anybody's raising their hand so I'll say hi teens low 20s please good evening everybody um I am not a Norton resident but I am um Norton
Housing's Authority Executive Director i've been the executive director there for 4 years um I've been following this um with the plan yes I ask you to say your name please yes sorry um it's Missy Salsby um so with this plan um I
definitely agree there is a lot of affordable housing that is needed um around Massachusetts period um we deal with over 20,000 applicants that are homeless um or just even struggling to
make needs and we deal with these people every day um so going just on the side of that the MBTA um if this isn't approved um what happens is we can lose a lot of funding of anything that comes
into the town of Norton um anything that helps the Norton Housing Authority of any grants etc that we can that we can get through the state um my little selection of the property
is definitely Norton Glenn Glenn um like you said it's a very old property um that is a great place to add more affordable housing and then also Mansfield Avenue I think is a great area um you can put businesses on top of and
properties and so forth so that's just my little intake on this like I said I am not a Norton resident but I've been here for going on 11 years in working in Norton and seeing what is out there and what people need so that's just my
little take on it thank you seems like a good segue here um anybody else who'd like to speak i know my priorities have been kind of targeted at uh property owners or about us about about neighbors if anybody else wanted
to speak uh this evening please raise your hand in the room or if you'd like to use the react function on the Zoom meeting i'm going to ramble here for another 20 seconds or so if somebody's looking to find the the note in the Zoom here um not seeing any hands go up in
the not seeing any hands go up in the room or in the Zoom um so I'll come around back one second or I'll come back to the board for additional comments or questions here obviously this evening we are moving
toward closing public hearing on this and taking a vote are there additional comments questions that we have before we move toward that point rob would you yeah um if you want to just get close to that let's see cuz um if you guys want
to blame someone for this idea blame me i was the one that proposed it um the thinking behind it was 100% not to take any additional burden on Norton um I have gotten you know we were talking
about people getting reveal media and I'm one of them obviously um but um the thinking I had there was not so much the seniors in Redmill Village you guys are like me i've made good money if our expenses our taxes if things go up in
Norton I don't really care i I can live with that i actually voted yes for the override i was okay with that increase so it doesn't really hurt me we do have people here in this town though that cannot afford that we we have seniors here at very meager fixed incomes um you
you know this group here I think retent village is predominantly people have done well for themselves and has okay well I said predominantly so okay but um what I'm saying is there are
people in this town that cannot afford these types of increases um excuse me i'm I'm going to let's let him finish his comments and I will definitely recognize you following please okay there are there are people in this town that it would be a hardship if costs or
the cost of living in Norton goes up at all uh we heard from them all last summer um think identified by them for my attitude toward the override but um they there is a group of people out there
that will feel this a lot and I would just urge you um I think there was some talk about um you know considering the needs of others i would urge you guys to consider that those needs too there's a whole contingent out there doing this
so go ahead i did want to if you just say your name and address my name is Joyce Kaufman i live at 30 Williams Road in Brennham um I've been a widow for a long time i was 48 my husband was
51 when he passed away sorry i'm a retired school teacher i live on my pension because uh I could never because I have a pension i could never get social
security from my husband um now I may be able to of course I tried to file and had to give my um his information and my information they wrote down my place of birth as Brockton Plymouth instead of
Brockton Massachusetts so when I got the information in the mail they said that my Joyce Kaufman farmer named Joyce Lieberman I am not a citizen because you do understand Brockton Plymouth there
was a Plymouth England so I had to go to social security and have them change that because they didn't consider Brockton Massachusetts a place i guess they didn't consider me a citizen
all right so I am living on a teacher's pension at Redmill so please do not assume that everybody that lives there don't say I am just like you everybody is different everybody is an individual everybody has
their [Music] own finance financial that they're living on so please do not make any blanket statements i'm sorry she's not She's not done
my blood is boiling right now people that like you that make that statement i'm sorry there are a lot of people that think that way you're incorrect very incorrect and very rude yes
so um I'll apologize if I misstroke um I was advised that Redville Village was an upscale community and that people were doing okay there if that's not true for some of you I apologize for the the generalization yeah the generalization
however what you've done is defined yourself as exactly the type of person that I'm trying to help by preventing this from getting built into Norton because I'm trying to keep people that are on a tight fixed budget from having to have to add to that that is really
what I'm up to here folks so I did perhaps members of the finance committee at the voting i was going to go to the member of the fin state your name and address for the record please yeah Gavin Cabbage uh 64
Freeman Street i also volunteer on the finance committee uh but of course my views here are my own first thing I wanted to say is uh regardless of the generalization being correct or incorrect the argument doesn't hold any water the purpose of this law is to decrease the cost of living which is
primarily driven by the cost of housing decrease the cost of living in the state and in this town because we seem to forget nor does this part of the state sometimes so I don't understand that argument uh by the board member uh your your cost of living should go down if we
build a ton of housing so if you double the housing in Norton which nobody wants it'll actually be cheaper so I don't understand that but um the other thing the reason I originally wanted to come up here is I wanted to reiterate what Mr sequel set um I've been involved in this involved is maybe not the right word
following this for years um I've only lived in Norton for 3 years but even before um I moved here uh I was following this law because public transportation and public housing or excuse me housing in general are really important to me my age group struggles to find housing uh in the state and
afford housing i'm 33 to give some context uh so what is my point here um we had I didn't see much actual data throughout those years certainly no data uh from anybody in this town um and the first time we saw some data like Mr seagull said was last week uh when the
gentleman from Chapa brought some studies to our attention now of course those are on paper they're theoretical and board members will point out that Mansfield uh which was brought up cuz it's right next door is actually in a very different situation um they've got MTA actually in the in the town so their
requirements around this law are actually very different but Mansfield is not the only town that's done a fiscal impact uh analysis another town that's more like Norton is Medfield they're also showing a positive uh impact in their analysis um of I think $800,000
$800,000 medfield's only got 13,000 people but they're also an adjacent community like us they have MBTA next door so the requirements are very similar to ours positive impact that's just one example um and as the chair said uh those analyses are not the end
all be all be all they're theoretical but what I would say is I would challenge board members uh here tonight and also members of the select board who continue to reiterate and repeat this idea that this would be costly to the town i would ask them to show your work because the only data I have seen has
been in support of this law the only town I could find that their analysis showed anything negative was Weston and that was in one small case and Weston is nothing like Wharton so to say the least they could probably do with some fiscal impact uh but
anyway I guess I made my point i'd ask the members of this board and members of the select board to please show your work if you've talked to people if you have some numbers show them to us show me what the impact is and explain to me how you can say so confidently over and over and over that this will have a
negative fiscal impact on the town finance committee will be reviewing what's voted on next week on Monday I believe so maybe between now and then do your math come to the finance committee meeting present your findings and tell me why this is such a bad idea thank
you anybody in the room would like to come up to the podium i do see a hand raised in the Zoom meeting so I'll go to them next but if anybody wants to queue up uh please feel free uh the name I see raised in the Zoom meeting is Val uh if you just wanted to unmute and uh state
your name and address please camera is optional your call that's me i'm kind of in the dark uh hi Val 50 Mansfield Avenue um I think Gavin actually covered it what I wanted to
request is that this idea that this is going to harm the town regardless of the studies that have been done regardless of the evidence that's been presented in multiple meetings now I would really love to understand why this is being talked about as if it's going to harm
people especially when to my mind going off of what Warren has said and other folks have said redeveloping somewhere like Norton Glenn in the future um once the current agreements expire with Norton Glenn um would be better for the town overall
i would I would really love to understand i know people think that you know some people don't like 40b which isn't even necessarily a part of this law some people don't like multif family housing because they think it's a bad thing even though it's been proven over
and over again in studies that I will be happy to share that multif family does not bring more crime or higher costs for your public safety and then in the case of for example 274 East uh 174 whatever East Main Street um that you're actually
gaining we are getting more money um from each of those kids that go to our schools than they actually cost us all of those things have been stated over and over and I really love to see the evidence hear the evidence have it shown
on a screen whatever of what exactly about this aside from multif family housing is spooky and I don't like it where's the evidence that it's actually going to hurt people please any further public comments from
in the room or on the Zoom meeting and again I'll ramble here for a second if anybody wants to come up on the Zoom and I do see um she doesn't know how to inter if I see you in the Zoom meeting i'll
get to you in just a second moren is raising her hand but I don't know if she thinks she knows how to raise that well not just you can go ahead i don't see the hand raising function right now on this Zoom
thing so you can go ahead and speak go for it i just want to reiterate what Warren Seagull said and I think being president of a 283 East Main Street where we have 40 homeowners there is a lack of
understanding about why this was being done and what the impact could be and I think most of what you showed tonight helped with that but to take this with a recommendation to the town meeting when it's clear to me that the majority of
the town residents are not clear on they know about the MBTA law cuz it's been all over the press but to understand why you're considering this overlay and where you're proposing it I think to ask
the town meeting to vote would be totally inapprop inappropriate and irresponsible at this time i think more information detailed information as you presented tonight and answering some of the
questions that a couple of the previous speakers have raised would be beneficial to be shared prior to the vote at any town meeting thank you and in the room here sir marks 2014 LA
so there are your four choices right there listed mansfield A uh Tweve Redmill and Norton Glenn the way I look at it I'm going with Rob a yes vote on Redm
Mill will turn into be an overall no effort down the road in my opinion no developer is going to come in and take take down your town houses they're beautiful town houses i was just there just the other day just to take a
look around no developer is going to come in and take down your town houses and put up 750 apartments it's just not going to happen we're trying to avoid that in my opinion yes it's going to be an impact on water it's going to be an impact on
the schools it's going to be an impact on fire safety it's going to be an impact on traffic we do not want that right now I have the average house i pay about $7,000 a year in taxes okay it's costing every kid
$18,000 to educate them so it's a net loss the guy from Chapa that was here a week ago he's basically a hired gun if you looked into Chapa he's a hired gun he's with a housing authority or housing group however you want to call it
Citizens Housing they've been around for 50 years they are the housing gurus or just they want that that's fine that's that's good that's noble altruism however you want to look at but he's part of he's just a a speaker for a
group that's trying to bring in more housing norton cannot afford that norton doesn't have the service for for that it does not i don't know how you're going to look at it so you've got a 100 people here and I assume you all show up to town meeting in the spring or whenever
it is but there's going to what may 19th may 19th thank you but you're going to have two or 300 people that are going to say no right and then if we is it is a no if the vote is a no we're going to lose the grants
so yes if you vote for something that you're all worried about that I won't say will never happen but highly unlikely to happen then it will still get the grant so a yes vote turns into a no effort but a yes vote satisfies the
law or the requirement so we can still have state grants so I'm going to go with what Rob proposed go with red bill and have everybody vote yes for red mill nothing's gonna h in my opinion nothing's going to happen put up a $100
million bond and we'll go either i'm speaking here sir thank you i'm speaking here sir and that's not the So when you bring your 100 people here you better bring 200 cuz there's going to be a lot of people coming out that are going to vote against and then we're going to lose all
state grants so yes a yes vote for a yes vote for Redm Mill is really kind of a no vote for it to happen that's right i hope yall because Warren was worried
about how to try to learn about how to educate how what the thought process is here so I'm going to vote yes for Redm Mill if it's proposed by them I'm hoping they do and then it'll be a no vote later on uh
a note happening later on and then we will still get the state grants it's the state grants we're looking for we don't want to lose those thank you it's a uh an ongoing challenge for this board to find uh a proposal which makes sense to
everybody in town if we knew uh we've been between a rock and a hard place for a year with this so understand Rob I think you wanted to make a comment did you already was up there before I
select your name and address 28 road i'd like to present to the board for records a copy of the financial report for chaper for 20 for 2024 yes we do have it already that is that from the Mansfield study or from the
menfield from talking about from the area no I think as we discussed last week at the select board meeting there's Chapa is definitely an organization that is in favor of more affordable housing in the state so they represent a specific
specific group with a specific agenda the information that they also highlighted was from independent studies from Mansfield and other towns as Mr cavage and others have noted so um I like to think I'm able to decouple the data from the messenger as best as I can
so um hi um I have no intentions of speaking tonight but the last speaker encouraged me to come out and re respond um my name is Hilda Kales Neves i live at 38 Owen
Road i am very new to Norton i am from New York i am from Yonkers the lower income area of Westchester County and when we bought our house which was sold for a lot of money um 30 years ago
everyone was discouraging us from buying this house in Yoners because they were going to have uh subsidized houses or low-income housing or multiple you know family housing i bought it because I was born and raised in the projects and we
were good people and these good people that were going to get housing across the street from my beautiful neighborhood were good people they were firemen they were policemen they were teachers they had mortgages they had homes and garages now everybody there
was a good neighbor that's point number one so everyone we're talking about whether it's the people from Norton or the people we're going to have move into Norton or those of us who come from California New York Florida and are new
to Norton or relative to the natives we're all good people and we don't want to put anybody out of their homes but if you think about the South Bronx when it burned up if everyone had said that community cannot afford the taxes they
can't afford to rebuild and no one had taken any interest in holding that neighborhood solid and had been like you not creative in letting different businesses come in we would no longer have a we would just have a really dead
part of the city much like upstate New York upstate New York the Catskills 40 years ago dead 50 by 1950 no one was going there after the 60s to vacation i went there in with my husband back in
1999 there were empty buildings and I know you cannot even imagine that Norton could become a dead town but if you continue to vote for non-growth you will become one of these towns where there are just old poor
people living in dilapidated homes and broken down buildings with absolutely not no good structures and not the money to fund it because you're not allowing new people new development the young people to come back the ones who were raised and grew up in Norton they're not
going to come back you were born now when I bought into Redmill I had no intentions of living in Norton had never heard of it before in my life my son bought a house in Easton i came to visit him so much that when we
stopped I retired we said "We'll move there cuz you have grandchild you know like most of us do." And um we did not buy in East because it didn't have the right atmosphere for the senior housing we were looking for we were looking for
Redm Mill red Mill's character their generosity their kindness the fact that it has people of all income prosperity middle class and struggling to stay middle class or middle income appeal to us and they have shown it in this last
year that we've been there so yes when I boarded in Norton and at Redmill it wasn't just because I wanted to live in Norton i was hoping and praying that the horrible town that I saw because when I saw India market and all of those empty storefronts there that none of you are
really working to make better or find a buyer or a renter or retail uh person interested in when I saw that I was like I I don't have anything to do in Norton i could just stay in my little Redm Mill village and that is what you guys are
doing the high school kids who want something exciting they're not going to go stay in Norton they're going to move out they're going to live 15 they rather live 15 people in an apartment in Boston or some other town like Easton or even
Brockton where there's much more going on than come and settle in a town where the older people would have now become you and the statements are letting it die so please I beg you be creative because it's not just Redm Mill that
we're trying to keep flourishing we're trying to help you flourish a town because it means more for me my son inherits our apartment i'd like him to be able to get some money for it or I'd like him to want to live in Norton when he's 50 and gets this apartment it
shouldn't be a burden or an albatross so he shouldn't be looking to the state to see whether they'll take it off his hands so please be creative in your thinking think about keeping your town alive vibrant attracting and keeping the young people that you're bringing here through Wheaten College and Stonehill
students the the nurses the firemen all of those people that we need to come in here and work in our district should be paying taxes and living here as well if you make it attractive good luck thank you ma'am i did go do a school in Duchess County so I do know
where Yoners is so I'm not completely Okay uh I'll do another call for anybody who wanted to raise their hand in the Zoom meeting here and then if anybody else wanted to speak Rob did you want to make an additional comment and just bring the
mic down so the Zoom can hear you here so I I just want to ask is it four or five cities that are fighting this right now uh it's a handful um they're doing a number of different tactics but as I've said that's the select board is the
policym decision of the town in that perspective that's their call is to bring a bylaw to town meeting correct but that my question was going there and what is the basis that they're fighting it over what is their basis for fighting unfunded they have a couple of different
ones of which we show on the screen is the state auditor's ruling that the bylaw is an unfunded mandate that in theory there's a state law on the books where if the state passes something and it puts costs on the town that the state
has to give you funding to cover those costs right now the current legal argument and I'll summarize and Paul you may be closer to town council on this than I am so if I misspe please correct me um that the current guidance from the
state auditor is that those costs under the unfunded mandate law only apply to the direct costs so the the studies and all of those things needed to actually create the bylaw and that the the auditor's ruling at this point which is
still subject to legal challenge like anything else is is that the unfunded mandate doesn't cover any of the other costs that a town would might have to accomplish and the and the auditor said it's an advisory opinion it's the state
auditor advising in the state's best interest for shocking yes five by guess okay so the state auditor and is it three four five towns four four five not four okay so the state owner in the four towns they're all saying it's going to
cost the money what you're saying is they're all wrong that this does not cost the town money no that's not what I'm saying well that is the basis though that may be what they're saying the town survivals I think rent them
uh I'm not going to name all of them but they basically touted the costs that they would need in theory need to make to create additional wells or additional sewage or anything like that from a potential new development are costs that they think that the state should have to
pay under the unfunded mandate law so that is a as the law is written we don't have to provide any of that but in theory if they try to hook up to town water there's not supply then we would need to figure that out somebody would
need to figure that out um who bears that cost is that's I think the core of the unfunded mandate ruling um ultimately this is a state law that they've asked us to comply with if the select board chooses to take legal
action against the state that's their prerogative and that's why they were elected to that board okay but all of those towns are saying it will cost them money do you feel that they are mistaken on that cuz you were
saying it doesn't cost the town money are they all wrong and the state auditor too i don't think I ever said that it wouldn't cost money i said that the studies that we were provided from Mansfield and uh Medfield and those studies showed that the consultants that they hired seemed to feel like the
property taxes and excise taxes and all of that based on the outlets they'd have to make for town services would in theory result in a net increase what that happens in practice I don't know would there be
additional costs would there be a discussion about does Norton need to find another well or turn another well on or something else no development that is proposed we need to provide the sewer to we've talked
about Twe there's an old commercial sewer plant on that property but it's not usable for residential if somebody wants to buy that property and have it work then that's their for lack of a more elegant term that's their problem um they're responsible for either
hooking up to a sewer if one's available or making a giant septic tank um so that's how that would have to work i mean are there other costs that may not have been captured as financial studies yes i don't know what those are but um
that's what those consults the other towns paid to f paid to look at things were paid to look for um so I'm not sure if there's a question in that but in terms of uh so the towns uh different towns obviously the
consultants in those towns came back with a different answer than the consultants you're bringing their reports from every town is Yeah correct it is we don't need to get into cross so is this is wouldn't you say this kind of a case where the outcome of that study is going to depend on who's
commissioning it um I think the outcome of every study depends on who's commissioning for what we're talking about correct answer so I think that Paul can you refresh with the East Main Street they put in how many new units and how many students are
there and what's the net impact so uh 274 East Main Street y it's 188 units how many students 27 right now so that pertains to Norton right and the net impact is actually positive correct we
also don't have data on I get I'm talking from the school perspective i get it we don't have the number of trips i understand that but in the small that we're talking about the town of Norton one of the things is schools we talked about that development that was put in
and there's a net that gain so additional public comments here i think ultimately the board does want to move toward closing the public hearing and moving towards a vote here i do want to point out that the law is that we should be provisioning familyfriendly and family suitable
housing they are specifying families so I think to say it's just going to be a bunch of singles I personally don't think that computes real well the law says we can't restrict it to exclude families i think No it
actually said family suitable units yes but the way that they've regulated that is that you can't restrict it to exclude children or exclude families um I do see another hand in the Zoom meeting and I see another hand here if you wanted to go i think I saw you before I saw the Zoom so if you'd like
to come up and speak again please I'll just ask you to state your name and addressing it at the podium if it doesn't go through the microphones in the room it doesn't go out on the Zoom so Missy Salsby um going back to so public housing we're we're state funded
100% state funded we hooked up to the sewer we had to pay over $1 something million to hook up to the sewer so I'm guessing going forward with whatever developer comes in they're going to also have to pay for that so and from my
understanding too from recent studies that I've talked to people in Norin from the town there is enough water supply to go around Norin thank you thank you my laundry knows better than saying
anything positive about the water department public hearing um I see Val with a hand raised in the Zoom meeting if you just wanted to unmute and just restate your name and address for the record please still Malcolm we're all still live at 50 Mansfield Avenue
two things one is to restate that familyfriendly means that you cannot restrict the property to be only 55 and over or have other restrictions like that technically speaking 274 East Main Street is perfectly familyfriendly we
are still seeing that it is only netting us 27 students the second thing I would like to say is there was a proposed development across the street from me that was going to put sewer on East Main Street and a bunch of us didn't want all that to happen and blah blah blah sorry
Mansfield Avenue rather um on Mansfield Avenue who was going to pay for the sewer to be put in that was going to be the developer the developer Okay so it wasn't the town having sewer costs it wasn't the
residents on the street it was Yes wrong it's hilarious the developer would be the one who would pay those costs so again I ask everyone who keeps talking Mark Rob anybody about this idea that despite all
of the studies despite the impact we've seen from 274 all of that please present actual numbers studies literally anything aside from because you always like to use the term scare tactics or fear-mongering that's what you're doing
if you don't present any numbers stop saying that this is going to hurt the town thank you [Music] so Mr sweet were you looking to speak again and then I see now I got to speak [Music]
mark Sweeney 14 Laura Lane yeah the developer would put in the put in the sewage do we have the capacity though at our the the station down on uh the Taton line down by the by the um my understanding is that sewer capacity is one of the things Norton does have we
have enough capacity that's my understanding but I'm not on the sewer commission so you can take that for whatever my voice is as far as water how often do we we've had water beans when we have water being every
year even when we've had wet summers we've had water beans everybody let's He's speaking to please keep the conversation down thank you and as Rob said well number one the one by off of uh Pine Street is pumping out bad water
right now because it's not filtered i don't know about well number three off of Newan Nukem but Pine Pine Street well is pumping out that's that's where you're getting your ground water because there's no filtration it doesn't go through the plain street water treatment plants so now you're going to have a big
draw on water you're going to obviously have kids coming in okay 750 units that's a lot of kids and these this is multi- how do they say it multi multifamily units these these are more
geared toward young families these aren't geared toward the 55 and older crowd this is kid this is the the idea of this housing is for the millennials the younger millennials and Gen Z i'll say millennials are 40 now in case anybody didn't know that okay i'm just
saying the younger ones but you know I'm not going to say when if you were had by now you should have had a house that type of thing at 45 or something that's that's on an individual basis but this this proposal is more geared or this law is more geared to the
younger crowd people that do have kids we are already almost I don't know I don't have the exact numbers but capacity at Somes in the North so you're going to hit it on the Zoom meeting if you'd like to
mute please thank you and anywhere you bring in a new development with 750 units you're going to have the police and fire going there all the time okay now
everybody we're going to let the gentleman speak there why because people are there they built East Maine there's a lot of police action at East Maine okay wherever you build how often does the does the uh the rescue come to your
neighborhood a lot thank you pay for it okay that's that's fine we're all going to pay I pay for it we pay individually let's let's not get into cross talks please so it's going to hurt the town and I can see the altruism tomorrow we're going to build support
this neighborhood or support this business that business to be a wise guy admit you guys don't even support that pizza place or that subplace that's right around the corner from you don't do it to change hands so many
times back you to the chair please thank you so just stand yes please I know you were looking to raise your hand previously I do I don't want to get into crossexaminations and going back
and forth and arguing and calling out people by name so as please direct comments to the chair and then we can continue to move forward here um please if you'd like to state your name and address for the record please um Lynn
Turjan 14 White Street in Redmill Village um it feels like it's just one side of the fence wants to claim it's going to cost us more taxes the other side is saying it's going to be a
positive effect on the town we can argue that all day long don't we have enough smart people in our finance can to actually find out the fact yes it will or no it won't and then people can make
an educated decision on how they want to vote and if it's going to cost the town money then maybe the select board would want to consider filing a lawsuit like some other towns
have done but instead of sitting here arguing it's going to cost it's not going to cost we can figure that out and then move forward thank you and I'll say just to that point the select board the at our joint session last week the
finance committee and the select board each also received the same reports that we've been talking about um and they have numbers present here they have had numbers present at pretty much every one of our meetings over the past several months our own audit our own Norton
that's up to the finance committee to to run through but they'll ultimately make their vote on the bylaw that we submit and their vote will be read at town meeting as in the finance committee does or does not vote to support this article some of them have said I favor this
proposal some of them have said I trust that what the planning board will put forward and will support the recommendation and some people have said they probably won't support no matter what we put through they're pretty thank you i got to go
yeah please hi my name is Lynn Staller i live at 71 Cotting Road in Redm Mill Village and I'm here because somebody was just talking about the emergency vehicles and how much these new units
would drive in the emergency vehicles i'll tell you my unit alone has practically supported the emergency vehicles because my husband was very sick and Redmill village is 50 and over we have a lot of older people i hear
sirens in our you in our neighborhood all the time and a minimum of six times the firemen have come a minimum of six times to pick my husband up off the floor so I don't want any discussion
about how the emergency vehicles and all of that you know that that expense is going to go up because of these other units because that's not true older people use emergency vehicles more than
any other demographic I believe but so I just get your facts right and check the record for my unit and you'll see me there for my husband thank you move the mic up um I've got a couple of questions sure
you can just state your name and address my name is Frank Bryan i live at 27 Owen Road that's in Norton thank you sir i've been a resident here for 13 years um my first question is uh I'm a little
confused on this grant issue yes are you telling me that if you vote Redm Mill Village in to be the location and it goes to town meeting and we voted out which we will do if that's the case with
uh 300 residents husbands and wives and other people that you'll still get the grant money so the mechanism for the state grants is that the state is requiring compliance by July or they're going to swing the metaphorical big
stick and say you don't qualify for any grant program that they can put that they can basically figure out they want to and how much is that grant that's two dozen different programs so there's no way to put a number on the
overall pool of grants is that correct in terms of it goes everything from community housing grants to fire safety grants it's if you imagine every discretionary fund the state has they're attacking on a rider that says if you're
not MBTA compliant by July X whatever 2025 you don't qualify um it's popping up on the screen there but the short version is if it's a discretionary grant the state is looking at this as a minimum requirement for
consideration so we would lose money from the state if we don't approve something at town meeting or in theory a special town meeting if it fails in May okay which probably will do and I think
that's the objective because the people in Redm Mill Village if I want to put my house up for sale the real estate agency has to declare all the issues when they offer to sell a house so they may say "Well this is zone now for this
particular overlay and I may have trouble selling my house because of that." Is that true it does not change the existing zoning so the existing zoning stays there the overlay is just an additional option over the top that
the property owner has so it's still there's nothing changes in terms of the zoning that you buy under it's an additional option for whoever owns the property in the Redm Mill Village case that's also the additional layer on top
of that is your condo dogs which restrict what can happen to the property so those are the layers that would protect the zoning from that perspective whether it's something that the real estate agent would put on the listing as
the zoning is this it also qualifies for this overlay on Zillow or Red Fin or whatever listing agent you look at um and then if they do that then yes the real estate agent has to say what that means to the buyer
okay and I'm assuming that in most cases they would be honest with the buyer and informed of that in theory somebody else could build something there if the condo association led it but you'd be a member of the condo association if you're a member of the Red Village community so
he would have a say in whatever that happens and I would think the condo rules can change but I think it's the perspective of some of the people who have spoken is that it's unlikely that Redmill Village would just say "Sure put whatever you want
here," which they probably wouldn't there's probably a gray area in there um but I think that's what people are looking at and why they feel that putting locating the overlay at Redm Mill Village is multiple layers
of it's unlikely that development would happen so that's the reasoning there okay but if we turn around and say if you turn around and come to town meeting and vote it down then we would have to try and come back with something else before the deadline before the deadline
yes and I would assume I could be wrong that we would probably vote it down because it could affect us theoretically selling our houses in the future the the hope is that I don't want to put a burden on anybody and the board hasn't voted on what properties we're going to
put in the for town meeting at this point anyway so any of the properties that we've talked about this evening are all still up for consideration um everybody has their own opinions everybody has their own feelings and eventually we'll get to vote on this as a board
um I like to think that an overlay like this would not have a significant material impact on what the resale on a property would be can I say can I say that with certainty no but I'd like to
think that it would not have a significant material impact given the protection that you have with the condo association okay my next question is if we turn it down at the at the town meeting does that give you time to make another assessment of another property
my assumption is that we would probably come up with another with a proposal based on the properties that we have because we've already done the homework on them okay and if that property is voted down because people in town are going to feel that it's going to affect our taxes then
we're going to lose additional income then the town will not be eligible for the grants that are shown on this page or anything else the state deems is worthy of this umbrella okay one last question if we do approve this is that
funding those grants help towards the cost of building that or to putting up that property they're not directly related no the state is basically saying any grant that we control the spigot is turned off if you're not compliant okay
some of the grants are tied to zoning housing development those types of things so some of them could be related to this type of overlay but it's not they're not directly tied the state's basically saying any grant we don't care
okay thank you thank you sir just say um see I don't see any additional hands in the Zoom meeting here um Rob if you want to make a comment then I'll say any other members here real quick um so obviously I I'm the one that put it out there i've had a
number of people tell me that that idea too is going to get slam dunked at town meeting that I don't stand a chance of you know yes I'm the one pushing Redm Mill Village but that I don't stand a chance of getting that through bec not because of the Redm Mill Village people
either it's because there's a number of people in this town they've already decided they're going to vote no to anything we come out with i I'm trying to come up with something that we at least wouldn't lose out that they could accept um that was my goal um you guys
don't like it if you want to vote against it or if it doesn't go so be it this is self-determination i'm not here to ram this down your throats but I do believe it to be what is in my heart i believe this to be what's best for Northtown
and um I'm desperately trying to come up with an idea other than lose our grants and get slam dunk at town meeting that is what I think you all knew originally I was recommending some lots that might get built and I have been straightened out um some people here have told me
where I can stick my plants um but I originally was trying to do this so let's try and give the state a little and all that and I've heard from the town and our constituents they really don't want that and in fact a lot of them are as frustrated with me for
coming up with this idea as you guys are just for a different reason they they think we should just go hard no and I shouldn't even be trying to do this that so your your chances of this not going through a town meeting anyhow if it went there I think a pretty strong it
wouldn't go through even if you none of you guys showed up I think you'd find the 300 people yeah the people he's talking about they're going to show up and just go and they're going to kill my idea too i'm pretty sure that's what we're looking at i'm just trying to head it up and that's why we volunteer to be on
these town boards can I say something Jen please i'm just going to speak for myself uh from the board's position uh when we first overtook this gigant gigantic task we tried to come up with the Great Woods
plot with the thought that if it was going to be built it would be in a certain spot but because of what we were hearing from the town's people I'm not going to lie I was in the notion of not building but in these meetings and listening to Orin speak and to the gentleman over here speak and even the
finance committee in the chapa it was the first time I've heard a different viewpoint i work for the town that's how I take this approach and when people told us you're not going to get that at Great Woods we switched we took a bad defeated town meeting we walked
away we got back as a board and we came up with different plans but hearing those gentlemen speak it also looked at from the counter view of if it does get built it can also better the town now do I think that they all the studies have
been done the way they should have been with the impact of fire police no but what I can go by is what we've heard from the Norton new students from East Main Street i'll forget the number again but yeah so there I see a gain and when I
hear other towns people say it's our duty to look to build and develop and keep improving those plans at the Glenn and on Mansfield A they are older buildings that could be revamped and if
they do decide to sell an improvement will take place i don't think that all a sudden we're going to build 700 houses and you're going to see 600 kids a brand new high school for what we have currently at the high school i don't think that that's reasonable i think that you'll see all sorts of different
families all sorts of different makeups and I think my mind has been changed because I've heard different viewpoints from what I would call the town of Norton's people i understand we're not going to make everybody happy some are going to be very mad and if people decide to vote no on this I don't have
control of that but I am going to say that I have changed my outlook from what I've heard and I will look at this through that lens as well at the risk of repeating repeating myself we'll see if any other board members wanted to make any comments or if any other public comments that you
wanted to raise otherwise we would move towards closing the public hearing and move towards just board deliberations and at that point we would not take any new input feedback testimony everybody's welcome to stay but you're the peanut gallery you're no longer coming up to
the podium make a motion to close the public hearing second we have a motion in a second is there any further discussion is there anything else anybody wanted to say anything wanted to speak prior to closing the public hearing
[Music] just really this was just a copy of my presentation and a nice job thank you okay I'll ask if anybody is filing out
of the room to please try to keep the noise down uh we are still trying to do a meeting here as best we can so we have a motion and a second to close the public hearing i have not heard any further discussion so now I'll move through the role here i'll do um
all in favor of the motion to close the public hearing please say I i all opposed abstensions okay so the public hearing is now closed so we can have additional discussions
comments if anybody would like to i think the way to approach this is a parcel selection bil language so take those separately
[Music] so um can I just make a recommendation on that please call I think it's important to do the parcel selection first because I think some other things like dimensions will be better off if
you know the area now agreed yes so further comments discussions I'm just kind of curious to proceed with the parcel selection agreed discussion on the parcel selection at this point prior to an actual motion to consider a
parcel or combination of parcels i'm sorry one one thing I would like to look at is a possibility of looking at the Mansfield area but kind of taking away some of the acreage towards the south just so it's a little closer to the 50 or I'd like to be around the 10%
range or more in the 12 15% range if you include that in another property so there's like parcel 273 and 275 I think um I don't know if we have have uh can put slide 18 Paul I guess if you can
share that but essentially you're looking to propose Mansfield and the Glenn and the Glenn but with Mansfield down from which direction so So there's two properties towards I'm saying the south just cuz
what the picture is but roles plaza yeah essentially so the the links and the oil company Okay yeah and I've run some numbers on those too so when whenever's a good time so those two properties account for how
much of the 32 1/2 acres um let me pull that up they And I will share this but those two account for about almost 7 acres well that's seven so that would be That's way too much so you're So that would bring you down to
25 and a half correct that would get us over the 50 sorry yeah so I've run the numbers and then if we if you take out Norton links which is 195 the total area of Msville Dav would
be 26.8 and when you if you added either Norton Glenn or Tweed which are about both about 25 acres that gets you to 52 acres so you'd be over the 50 although there's a you know we're within that buffer area um I've asked Serpent to
look at this and run try to give us an estimate of what the model would produce in terms of units and just taking out 195 Mansfield would yield about 751 units according to their model so
we're right at the 750 so essentially with the Glenn and Yansfield minus the links we're right at the the edge of the requirement correct okay so does that answer your question
from a point of information standpoint uh yeah that does honestly hearing it like that sounds like that's cutting it pretty close it to add the links apartment anyways won't make a difference it's already built it's a brand new apartment and the zoning would be less units than it's
already at nobody's going to tear it down to build less units not one wants to make money right so the links like I don't see getting rid of that but I I mean if if it's cutting it close to the line if it's is like some little
wetland thing that brings it under 50 acres or something yeah i guess the alternative would be to take something off on the north side by the Netscale line if you wanted to try and reduce that um Paul did you have a suggestion regarding single family units yeah there were those four units on the on the west
side um in total there were about about 2 acres so it would when you com if you take out those four single family homes combine you know then add it with let's say Norton Glenn it's 54
acres and 784 projected units okay so there's a bit more of a cushion there i don't Yeah given that we want to be as tight to the number as possible but we
also want to we don't want to get caught by a rounding error at the same time i know we've talked about that over the past 6 months however long we've been talking about the latest version so it's worth their plans about targeted 55 i think that's a
good number gives you a buffer yeah um and Paul I know we talked about Red Mill and Redm Mill crossing just to be clear on that if Redm Mill crossing is removed and we're still accounting
for the protected area in the way that the requirements make us um Redm Mill Village by itself is still above the 50 benchmark it's so looking at the spreadsheet that Circuit has um Redm
Mill would be 50.8 acres is that inclusive or exclusive of the Kelly's property that's not including Kelly's Place kelly's Place is a little over an acre
okay rick Mill is 50.8 so you know it it probably would be considered you could round you're at round up to 51 so if you added uh Redm Mill crossing that would get you to 52
yeah but I think that the residents expressed that that was a negative yes so but even without that Redm Mill Village by itself is still above the 50 benchmark correct just above it okay can we get a feeling where the whole board is because I think we all know the
numbers now can we just get a consensus on where everyone's preference is question on red no by itself though you're saying the 50.8 is the only right yeah do you want to go to slide 25 that's a little tight
yeah it's it is tight but it's not 50.1 and when see 8 * 15 is it's an extra 10 units of cushion essentially is basically what that is if my back of the envelope math is still
you can let some of it dip into the east compartment too we're not told lots or anything we could in theory include a portion of East Maine since it was noticed and because it is it if you take out RNO crossing is it still
contiguous cuz I know the state has requirements about Yeah I wasn't sure I want it wrapped around but I know the state has requirements for like the minimum size of a continuous part of this overlay it is I get you no that's fine okay
so and do you want to pull up the parcel that on uh point slide 23 here so that's [Music] um where the parcel lines are for East Maine is
there is that all one parcel yes two 274 East Main is one parcel okay but carving that up would be But we could do just a as long as we had a way to describe it for the zoning amendment
we could do a partial of that lot um to reach we'll just say a a more comfortable buffer if the poor desired so to go
from 760 to 775 just to throw a number out there so that would be an extra acre off the back of that parcel basically a thin strip going from top to bottom just
something like that something like that would in theory provide a little bit of leeway in that perspective right so um yeah so I mean we can if anybody wants to make a motion
they can if we want to have further discussions we can continue to do that so I actually think we all do know enough i think Jim was alluding to that earlier um I don't know if we're going to get a consistence here but I think everybody in this is anybody in this board still wishy-washy about where they think they're going or do you guys
pretty much have an idea i I think I'm pretty much I know where I have to go i I I got it can we just do a straw poll before we do this i I'm fine with that before the actual final drop yeah if anybody wants to do a straw pull we certainly can yeah i I I'll just start
off by saying my least uh the pick that I want the least I'm I'm ready to drop Tweee i don't think it's in our consideration at this point for me um I do think that I mean I've
approached this this whole project with a with intentionality to it um I don't want to be an extreme person on either end i don't think it's going to have a massive fiscal impact or a or a gain of any sort really i think it's going to be
pretty much around the middle with a little swing one direction or another um I don't want to do this again for just another year this has been enough uh I'm I don't think it's going to break
Norton the way it I mean there's a potential for it to be something it could be all 750 units it could happen probably won't but again the fiscal impact will probably come around zero it's not going to be great and it's not
going to be bad it's probably going to be in the middle that's what the data shows it's not good or bad it's just kind of in the middle and I definitely want to go to a town meeting and not have just a whole herd of people ready to vote me down it's up to the to the
town but I'm going to do what I just think is the best in my mind i'm going to make somebody upset no matter what so yeah the options that were up there can we just go to the different I think it was 8 25
slide 25 that one um Mansfield A and Norton Glenn Mansfield have Norton Glenn Mansfield and Norton Glenn Mansfield and Glenn Sounds like we have a majority before you get to being
run I'll say middle just for argument sake but yeah I think it's important though that We discussed earlier that we're a unanimous decision as a board so that when we send that forward Rob I get your understanding for fighting the fight you started i
understand that but I think as a board we should be unanimous i would like to say also yeah Rob there's nothing unintelligent about your idea redmill Village is a very sound pick there's there's nothing wrong with that in itself
the residents there have spoken uh but I do appreciate you uh you know standing out and saying what you believe needs to happen did you want to say anything yeah i think I've gone between a bunch
of different things here i think this evening I saw a whole bunch of no voters walk into the room and the point of this has been to get something passed at town meeting has that been a tall order from beginning
yes um am I more challenged to think that Red Mill would pass at town meeting tonight than I would have been a couple of weeks ago i think I think that is a challenge to I have a hard time looking
at who was here and who was on the Zoom meeting and seeing that going our way at town meeting i don't know what happens with anything else either um but I would I would support men i think it's the best compromise mhm it
it's the least amount of impact but still yields some potential for growth and it allows for redevelopment of some sites that could probably use it and would increase the revenue on them if they were redeveloped um I also think they probably are in good locations to
provide a opportunity for some mixed use which I'd like to see so it's a good compromise it's it's probably the best compromise on the table so I'll make a motion to move forward
with Mansfield AB and Norton Glenn to be on the ballot for the MBTA overlay zone seconded and we have a motion and a second is there further discussion from the board um if we make that uh decision is it
still room to make the small adjustments we talked about earlier the lot size yes so that the motion is to pending that we're going to make adjustments to the lot lines and the total acreage okay
it's just settling on an area yes okay um so we have motion in a second no further discussion um I'll go through the role here eric I'll start with you yes steve yes laura yes jim yes
yes Rob oh okay so that is the vote um so we'll move forward with that in terms of fine-tuning the parcel selection for Mansfield AB just to confirm um are we looking
to remove the single families was that the that was one of the discussions yeah honestly after hearing that recommendation I prefer the recommendation to what I was mentioning earlier it's all it's all contiguous the the single families to the four top on
the Mansfield line yes yeah i don't mind chopping it up that way we'll also keep the line right on one side further discussion otherwise I look for a motion motion approve the amendments to advance field lines seconded okay we
have a motion from Eric and a second from Jim further discussion okay I'll go through the role here again eric yes steve yes laura yes jay yes i'll vote yes rob no okay thank you
okay so further discussion i think partial selection is done we have any further further discussion on the zoning bylaw language paul are there any specific questions that we wanted to review with
this orange yes i just need to get there question that so just the public hearing for this article is closed i just want to thank you very much we will do our best to be a town meeting to support this thank you guys for coming
it's one article paul anything specific that we wanted to cover in terms of the vital language yeah and I can go over a lot of this pretty quickly but um most of this is you see multiple drafts of this and I just want to focus
on some of the changes cutting off the far right hand corner there in the zoom just to just the zoom of the document yeah control minus that works too okay good luck i
can tell it just goes away like this maybe there um so just a couple things um first couple meetings ago Eric made a had a comment about or actually it was in your email to me
but wanting to make sure that we try to get smallcale development as part of this and so I just thought it would make sense to make a ch just add something to our purpose statement to encourage compact neighborhood scale mixeduse development we already had to encourage
mixeduse development and I just wanted to add compact and neighborhood scale to to address that issue and other members have made that point too about smaller um then um we also added a couple of definitions
here uh for mixeduse development in top of a shop um but we wanted to make sure we added um Steve had a recommendation in both both here and in with the recodification that that we add to the definition that uses within the mixeduse
development uh definition or top of the shop shall be limited to only those allowed as of right or by special permit as prescribed by the zoning district the development resides and shall not include any use not permitted by such district i think that's a real that's a
positive change to it it just makes it clear what can go in there just because you're putting at the top of the shop doesn't mean you can put something that's only allowed in another zone right now this is where I think more of the substantive comes in and
um I Okay so this was this was mine uh although if we need to change it we've we've still got it so along the lines of the one of the comments and I guess Eric you had made a point when we had the use table for the top of the shop that it
was complicated you said it more eloquently than that now that's I started looking back at this again i'm like why do we even need that we've defined it now because we've we've added the definitions for top of the shop where we say you commercial
non-residential uses are on the first floor and residential above it do we need to now break it out and be so specific in that table and why not just leave it as that just say it's top of the shop or mixed use development and
not be so prescriptive with our with our use table like we had it before basically copy the use table of the underlying zone right I think it simplifies it um you know it's also challenging because as you know there are times when
we get commercial developments they don't know who the tenants are and you might be locking people in or you might be locking a use out that might be a good use and you if you make very specific recommendations if something doesn't fall within it we can't approve
Yeah so any feelings for or against that approach to the use tables in this district as as somebody that worked on it a little bit uh I'm I'm cool with cutting it out and
if we want to reapproach this district in a year or two with an with another change we can do that it'll just exist in our zoning we can change it in the future so I'm cool with not putting a specific table there okay
other thoughts no I agree i think going back to the the zone underneath for the for the mixed use opportunities makes a lot of sense and yeah we can we can revisit for more specific issues later but I think that for now for this for this makes a lot of sense
okay I'm not hearing any we don't like that Paul so let's move ahead okay so another another great suggestion Eric had was adding these additional restrictions for any of the non-residential uses in the
top of the shop or mixeduse developments um hours of operation 7 to 9 which is your standard um size limitation um like a little direction on that you know Erica you had a suggestion about 5,000 square ft which
could be perfectly fine i just threw in here maybe we could go to 10 but if if the comfort level is more do the only reason I picked 5,000 is cuz I live close enough to where Charlie used to be and I looked it up and there that that
specific shop was about uh like 5,300 so I just run it down a little bit but that's as long as we capture a number that make sure that things we don't put a Walmart on the bottom of something and you know the butcher shop is what you're Yeah the butcher shop yeah the the grocery shop Does it qualify as small it
is i know it's on I know it's on the small side and as I'm not necessarily married to the smaller number but I just want to make sure it's defined and defined a way that's explicit cuz uh you that was a comment that the Ohio building special has has to go take a look at this too and we're going to
define the numbers i just want to make sure we have a number that makes sense for the communities in Norton i I actually like the number being smaller i think that's great and we have the 10,000 limit anyways in our bylaw so we're we're good i like the 5,000 um the only thing um for the hours of operation
uh the earlier we shut down commercial uses the more likely there's going to be families with kids moving into that building something with activity later in the night might persuade younger people to go there that don't
necessarily have kids that need to sleep early i don't totally agree with that as someone who lived on top of the shops a couple of them in my life um if if a family needs to talk with a shop they're going to take it doesn't matter what the business hours are um like I live on top
of a bar and a bike shop so um I don't think that matters that much it's really is like the the restrictions I'm I was recommending are less for who's living on top of the neighborhood around it that that's what I'm just trying to make sure like um honestly at at this point I
forget everything I put but it was like you know deliveries can't be a certain time you know all this stuff can't be a certain time not not for the people but for the but for everybody around uh just just to comment one more on that just the hours uh like 6 to 10 if we
extend it a little bit more is two eight hour shifts as opposed to an unusual number is that like more i don't know but I won't be picky about this one i I was going to say if it's written in this way what in theory relief would people have
to Would they just ask for a waiver with specific requests i was going to say review so they would need to Well typically in any of the conditions we put in whether it's cycling or special permit we'll put hours of operation but we we also put a a relief
valve in there to say or or approval by the building commissioner if you wanted to go that route yeah I was just thinking in terms of nine's a little early nine's early but also seven's a little bit late like you're going to miss any breakfast stuff
on your way out if we're talking 6:00 you may miss that yeah depending on what whether people are going somewhere but yeah um my gut says 6 to 10 like Steve was
thinking um just from a in theory when do I want to work want coffee or pizza um perspective but I would be more comfortable with 6 to 10 as well yeah not if there was a relief valve in there
for a necessary case then I'm not sold on either way what would be your proposal i think I think I would just follow Steve 6 to 10 there um because again
we're limiting to small retail with the size requirements so it's not going to be anything that large i figure a coffee shop or a little boutique or something yeah forgive me if I thought you guys were not in that office
which by the way they'd be closed right about now uh should we make a motion then make a motion for a cross run no um so additional comments on the restrictions
for hours of operation size limitation or deliveries i would just uh make deliveries six to six at that point just to kind of make it even agreed i don't I don't mind the deliveries being later yeah agreed you want to start your business off
without your start your product get it the day before yep if they can deliver a little later it's nice showing up during because we went through the Cumberland Farms and they said they wouldn't do deliveries before a certain hour and how many times have they complained to the building commissioner about that well they
haven't done it since the 6 to the attorney yeah exactly we called the attorney on them and then they stopped yes um so delivery 6 to 6 opposed to it it sounds like consensus
was seven to six so I don't I'm not opposed to six it's just uh I don't see a diverting need to push it earlier i don't It's fine either way yeah keeping I'm sorry keeping it at seven sure yes seven okay
okay um if we come in on ours to Okay so and then now just think about the areas that have been selected so you know as you're moving forward with Mansfield Davin and Norton Glenn um
I think there's a couple things here we you know want to reexamine which is minimum lot size this is this is all coming from the original draft that we had presented in the fall i'm sorry I should have mentioned that to you all yeah minus all the stuff that we took in
a Yeah so I I do want to point out so we originally had 5,000 square ft um we do have some wiggle room cuz at the smallest lot size on Mansfield DAB is about a little under 12,000 square ft uh
Norton Glenn is all about 40,000 one is 39,000 i would suggest just one standard for for both districts but you could go higher than 5,000 if and still not uh worry about creating variances which
the state could you know we stay if we stay under uh you know that 12,000 square foot threshold the state should you know I think we'd be fine with that does changing the lot size play with the
model at all it it does in what way if we make the number bigger what is the impact on the model that would probably I don't know they ran it based on 5,000
yeah i mean in theory don't change yeah in theory if you're making larger required lots and the setbacks are staying the same it should in theory have the challenge would be if you made
it smaller with large setbacks because then you would get to a point where you were making the lots too small for the setbacks to work and you'd be restricting development i don't think that the model would by making you do a bigger lot size
you're just meeting and you have the same other requirements you're just putting more buildings on one lot right you are doing that in theory in theory unless you combine lots anyway and do whatever you're going
to do anyway i'm I'm for the small lot sizes anyways okay oh so I I would be in favor of one standard for each for the entire article in favor of the standard
for one just one across the board and then question is do we want to keep the 5,000 that we've been talking about do we want to change it to 10 um I think with the models that we've talked about I'd rather keep it at the
five that's what everyone's been seeing that's what the visualization is okay any other comments and Paul you have frontage here that you just commented that some of them are potentially non-conforming
one of them one would be our our bylaw allows down to 50 ft for frontage that's typical down the the Grove is 50 by 100s mostly yeah the small lot that's
not something you all deal with zba deals with it but there are if they were older lots there are small lot amnesty so it the the minimum in that case is 50 but that's you know but again you can
set your own standard 75 is what we used uh previously and again other than this one case everything else would be would need it already the current lots but the the standard Norton across
the lot frontage requirement for a new new property on Main Street is village commercials 120 ft commercial's 120 ft residential 150 i think VCC's
so it's the same yeah so we're carrying this through from that from the most the least restrictive frontage requirement that we have in the body right i'm cool with it where it is agreed
anything further i'm fine with that um Paul I think from uh we had said um that we wanted to have that maximum units per acre is 15 not 16 okay we've been we've been working with
16 just to to build the density buffer and that's what the model is all based on okay so again if you drop that number you need to add acreage back in no I'm fine with that okay um not much
left um Laura had a comment about bicycle parking because I think originally it said commercial but I think we change it to all projects so residential we would still trigger bike parking good um Steve did you have a comment there no I just Good so there
was a comment i like bikes yeah but um buffers and screening again before uh with this with the large parcel at TPC abudding uh the mobile home park you had a larger buffer requirement i just
suggest going just using our our typical buffering since especially in these areas they're already built out um Mansfield isn't even a butdding up against a single family area it still could trigger some buffering anyway but
it would just be the standard nothing you know whereas originally we had it as a something more you know more than the standard yeah I'm cool with that and then affordability the only thing town
council had uh the law under 3A is you round down fractions if you have x number of units so like for example nine unit development yeah so the the 10 West
Mains 18 units right we round it up to get to two in this case you would round it back down you would round it down that's the state that's in the regulations so we're just complying with that
understood but disappointed and the state also said you can't put more than 10% they put that in big bold underline letters they did they did so that's that's you know the significant changes since the last time we had a deep dive
into this so any further discussion on the whole of this text or specific section that I want to look at i just had one question yes directed to Steve what's up Steve has everything that you wanted to get considered been
considered as far as the MBTA yes thank you as far Yeah as far as this yes that's all I care thank you very much Rob okay any further comments otherwise look for a motion to submit this
draft for the bylaw article to other town committees and town meeting so moved seconded okay we have a motion and a second motion from Jim and a second from Eric eric was close any further discussion
i go through the role again sorry eric yes steve yes laura yes jim yes i'll vote yes yes and yes don't turn on your computer yet we still have Erica we're only halfway
okay okay so that concludes our discussion on the MBTA the agenda up and the final public meeting that we will have discussing this prior to town meeting hooray thank God
that just sounds anticlimactic i use more energy but I don't have it anymore all right let get to the uh go to the bathroom gerard Kates's phone number please we do no we need it make sure it makes
good on his promise oh to show up at town meeting yes that's orange job i'm just kidding no okay so the next discussion is our public hearing on the recotification of the zoning bylaw and zoning maps so the public hearing is
[Music] open i think it probably makes sense to go through the comments updates that we have here and see if there are any remaining uh public comments or additional questions here can I just
start first by I'll open up the yeah the main document and then we'll you know I think we'll probably have the biggest discussion on the use table but again um since you've all met there's
been a lot of work being done and I really want to thank both Steve and Laura for putting hours of work into this uh again it's volunteers that I'm I'm always so thankful for people who do go out and volunteer and this is uh you
know very meticulous work and fortunately they're both very detailoriented people um so these changes or that we'll be talking about reflect both uh the work that they've done um so I am going to start I'm going
to do a control find because there'sund and some documents So I want to uh flag things as they happen um so one of the changes and in fact or
there's Orin um there as you may remember Orin made a comment about when we have zoning map notifications our the original draft did not include noticing a butters so I put
that back in i just pulled it you know word for word from the existing bylaw so it's in there um no net change understood no net change um the next one okay so the next one is
the accessory dwelling units so um this afternoon I did get an email um I sent this draft off to the attorney general's office they've been doing courtesy reviews on this they gave this on the ADU section on the ADU section alone um
they gave this the thumbs up that they were okay with it at least this is just a courtesy review so I've made some changes based on if they go back on their own courtesy review then I'll sue them not really but yeah so um this first one
um was um they want we needed to clearly say that uh the ADU is an attached or detached unit that was in the state law it wasn't truly clearly pointed out here
she flagged it i sent this to her she was fine with it uh the next one is right below it and sorry trying to navigate one screen and look at another so yeah it's not I I can't do
it um so this originally said um oh we I need to sorry I need to put this on this originally said the lot on a single
family must have a minimum of 10,000 square feet um she flagged that and just I just came I pulled this literally there's an ADU model bylaw so I pulled it from it she was fine with it just to
say that an ADU on a lot with a single family uh dwelling shall not have any more restrictive dimensional standards than those required in that dwelling uh district or accessory structure and that an ADU on a lot with a principal
dwelling that's not a single family dwelling unit shall not have a more restrictive dimensional so we cannot the ADUs cannot have any additional restrictions on them uh compared to what's in that residential zoning district or in that district that allows
it and the idea just like with NBTA is we the state wants to incentivize ADUs the idea is that you couldn't put a setback on a single family hose is 50 ft but if you want an accessory dwelling unit the setback's an additional 50 ft
right basically you can't uh you have to treat them with the same setback rules or whatever other pieces that they would have and and we already allow ADUs by right but as detached but this expansive as attached not detached attached and
they have to and our current bylaws which I think we talked about the last meeting say that has to be owner occupied for the single family and the new bylaw says you can't the new state law says you can't say that correct and then we also had to change the uh the
size of the unit uh from 750 to uh 50% of the principal dwelling or 900 ft whichever is smaller so um uh then so wait go back to that one again just so I can make sense of my
head so it has to be the maximum it could be is half of the principal dwelling or 900 ft whichever number is smaller right so if you have a 2,000 square foot you couldn't take a,000 you need to keep it at the 900 yeah you would it'd have to go to 900 at that
point okay there's a couple small things here she had she flagged that we wanted to further define uh you know transportation facilities which you know we actually don't have any and then uh further just clarify
short-term rentals defined by this statutory provision that's that so let me go to the next edit does that need to tie into our existing short-term rental law or no is that enough she just made reference to the
state i know i know just for us because we have an existing short-term rental bylaw we do um but if we're saying you can't do that then it doesn't Right we don't It doesn't allow it you can't use it so but you could use the single family
you know conceivably any objections to adding an additional line to that saying regulations on the singles of the single family property consistent with written bylaw section whatever it is no issue no
objection okay so add um add the reference to for the single family unit to our existing short-term rental bylaw um okay basically saying this says
there's no short-term rental of the ADU as defined under that chapter state single single short-term rental of the single family property is governed by see here the principal structure
is governed by exist by existing insert reference to by law now by law here yeah i don't know which section is in the new draft but okay okay move on from
there sorry I added more work um Mark just had this was a small change on uh the we've added updated the design in the village commercial district he just said we need to when we talk about deviation from any such standard shall
require a separate special permit is that additional filing fee uh we don't typically if you have multiple we typically just charge one okay special permit i have no objection to us making additional motions as much as I don't
like it but I don't want it to be a we're trying to soak somebody write through Lucas and listen to that um now we're in the definition section um so this is one and Laura Steve please
feel free to to you know to talk about this but we're trying to get a definition for long-term you know care facilities particularly you know convolescent homes so we've added this definition that you can
see um I don't know Laura Steve do you want do you want to say anything about this uh well as far as the definition goes Do you want to show the simple markup on this one just to see the final sure
hopefully it doesn't change pages on us n there it is okay no the definition fits as I would assume it does it reads the way I would think it does it includes nursing homes and stuff like that it's not restricted against old
people but it's not only for old people that was the correction we tried to make yeah they were Yeah we were just going back and forth with Mark about this about facilities for the agent but then also those who were you know young
so okay that um is there a reason in the second to last sentence right before it says facility the words are for the aged or aged does that add anything to the definition because I could see somebody
arguing semantics that it applies to the everything in that common list well it says includes right shall include and then somebody could infer that convolescent or nursing homes is for the aged
even though they're skipping the rest of the common items there that somebody could infer that that clause applies to all of them even though it is not the intention i don't see if it adds anything to have those three words there yeah but we
should look at 105 CMR 150 to make sure it's not specific to aged it's we should look we should look at it but the way it reads it it defines long-term care facilities that
include aged facilities it's not restricted to age like it it's the it reads the same way this does i was just saying delete those last three words in that sentence i'm fine with that because we've already got long-term care under senior housing facilities so
yeah so delete for the age right there because it's already implied that it doesn't need to be specific to any age group that's basically the intention there there is a reference above for elderly persons though too yeah but that one's
contained in its own clause into old age for ambulatory persons or retirement home care for elderly persons okay those ones are more separated having gone when we went 12 rounds with somebody talking about the date something went into effect and then
saying a bylaw magically didn't apply to them yes okay other we fixed that right yeah oh sorry fixed the the the language around the affordable housing bylaw no
longer has a date where it was we did a while ago okay yes just had a panic attack so the next one is a definition new definition for or definition for a new use neighborhood shop which is a a
retailer service kiosk and um we would like to get clarification if this if this stays um what would be a size threshold 200 ft 1,000 ft but the idea here is these would be like a bodega
small corner neighborhood store reticular you know particularly retail use 200 is really small 200's like a a storage container
that's pretty small pretty storage area they'd need i mean I think I I put 200 as sort of like what would the minimum be for like a single person to do like a barber shop in their garage like a like it's almost like a home business without
the the home so sort of that scale um but a,000 was listed as like the maximum okay so somewhere in that range seems appropriate to me okay so I'll say was just about the definition we're now
talking about where it may or may not be allowed in the use table now sure um do we feel like we can separate those or do we need to look at those together to make that determination for they kind of need to be looked at together i think the assumption is that this is going to
be potentially placed in a residential zone that's the point of a neighborhood shop so the the scale is to be around housing not necessarily in village commercial okay so do we want to do we need to have that
side by side with the use table or does that give us enough to go on at this point depends are we proposing to allow it by right or by permit special permit was my proposal right in in the residential and buy
right in the uh non-residential retail is already buy right in the commercial just not a residential okay this is the entry so this is significantly smaller than small scale indoor recreation which we suggested putting in the residential
zone so neighborhood shop which is a definition for smallcale retail by special permit and residential and by right in other commercial districts
um I think that's enough for me to clarify on and go on to look at the definition in terms of the size that would be permitted honestly if that's like bounds on either side it might be better just to separate out like not smaller than 200 not
greater than a th00and it's a little more clear if that's the intention i have no problem with somebody going under 200 i I I don't know how they could that would just remove that number then but just remove the 200 say a thousand would be the limit i'm
comfortable with that it's an upper okay i'm terribly sorry folks i'm not feeling well and I need to pull myself out of here i'm sure these two would like me to get lost as fast as possible no no hope you feel better i hope you feel better no no
we feel better but hope you don't feel worse i hope you feel better next that's what No that's what I have two kids that come home from elementary school so um germs are germs die yeah I apologize if I thought there
was anything wrong or going on I would have just zoomed no no worries okay um so anything else on neighborhood shop i think before we just settle on the size there is do we feel a thousand
is a good maximum here do we want to keep it more toward 500 like we had at the in the other bylaw in the other bylaw in the MBTA we had a of the 5,000 for a shot right compar cor
like the Charlie butcher shop was around 5,000 and that gives an idea of scale in a real sense um footprint of tasties I measured it out is about 3,400 square feet so tasty is enough well the first floor
is under Yeah it's 45 but is that just the place where your customers are does that include the uh whole thing 45 by 75 so include a tape measure i hope they got a comp no the GIS math has the measurement tool on it so it's rough but
it's good enough my thought is that it in general they shouldn't exceed the square footage that's common for housing okay so like most houses don't reach 5,000 ft no okay so do we have specific feelings on
the sizing here but as on the page if anyone wants to change it let's now's the time okay sounds like we're Let's This didn't exist before should we talk about whether we want the use at all okay
so the definition is now clear do we want to include it in the codification i guess that's that's your point Laura yes okay yeah does this make it more difficult to potentially pass this i don't see it as a giant weight on
either side of the the balancing scale there my logic would be back to shops that used to be in the grove kind of well that that is definitely my my intention but my my thought here on this
particular project is in our recommendation right now we're recommending small scale indoor recreation which we don't we cannot limit until it's 10,000 ft so we're recommending 10,000 ft arcades and gymnasiums or whatever i don't think a
thousand square foot shop is gonna throw it compared to that understood but understand that we haven't gotten to that point in the bylaw yet either sure but just but yeah so are you comfortable assuming that this
is also in the draft use table Paul yes well are you comfortable addressing it when we go to the use table yes that's fine i just want to raise the we did get a written public comment about newly added residential zoning
commercializing residential zones thank you that's all yeah we can keep the definition even if not in the use table for future use okay um the next one uh definition
personal service establishment is a new addition uh a facility providing personal services such as barber shop salon laundry print shop i think this is Steve this is your edit to try and carve this out from trade services is that correct i know you and
Laura kind of Yes i just split it we have this definition under services the service establishment general service establishment personal and service establishment trade it already exists the definitions exist
separately in the uses table they're combined and the the definitions themselves are a little bit where like we have trade services you were down there keep going okay we have trade services which are like workers but then
general services is also repair shops there we go so this is the difference here so we have general service personal service and trade service is definitions i mean general service includes a
blacksmith yes but we also have you mentioned laundry and those are under the personal service establishment sure but it seems like like a blacksmith or repair shop or whatever would fall under trade services like a like a mason
a painter like trade is typically defined as assisting the construction industry okay so I think Steve looking at these definitions the other one does seem a bit duplicative from a definition
standpoint not talking about the use table i think you have to look at the arrangement of the all three definitions together the way I put it together i didn't only write personal service establishment i have a definition for trade ser trade service and repair shop
also but they're not in alphabetical order that's why they have to be seen side by side but okay so we have personal service establishment and then the other one should say trade service and repair shop is the way I wrote it but
okay to separate you know labor work from barber shops essentially more definitions under signs And in terms of not to keep jumping to the use table there's also basically delineate
is there a difference in use i didn't zone didn't change any of the permitting okay just delineated the uses for future and there's trade service and repair so here's Yeah here's trade service and repair that Steve was just talking about
okay okay in terms of making a decision on basically Steve so it's these two definitions that UCP is a set or is there a third one uh I think it's it's pretty much those two that replaced the
one line in our table right so it's those these two definitions would be replacing three definitions the three definitions that were up on screen before or is that I kind of just got Yeah I got rid of the general service establishment that's just kind of put it in the category with
personal services i'm not I'm not sure how it would want to be labeled but it seemed like it went with service and repair so the additions of the personal service and the trade service that we see on the screen here replace those additional three those other three definitions which are under S Paul not
to make you keep scrolling here and there's service I think it's better to find but it's not my biggest fight in this one no keep going that's still under signs signs goes on for many pages right
we still don't follow it this is under signs now just north of S it's up s it's up it's S E so it's got to keep going saying the alphabet song too many times uh lot of signs lot of signs lot of
signs wow look at that there we go those are the three that would go away if we accepted the other two so I think this is an either or proposition here do we like these three do we like
the other two yeah I think my preference is to go with the three okay I know you've been in the trenches with this one they were the ones provided by Mark they make sense okay I think it delineates them well
I to further put this I did divide the two uses personal services and trade services and repair shops in our uses table currently it does not exist separated currently all three is ever
just grouped together so part of that was but the the modification of the use table that you've proposed doesn't alter them other than putting them in two different lines no it doesn't change the
permitting yet for future maybe okay again obviously I like the suggestion I suggested it but uh I'm not hard on this one it wouldn't be it wouldn't uh make sense if you didn't so now I
think I think I lean towards the three sure so Paul that would be striking the additional personal service and trade service ones um I have no objection if we get to the
use table with carrying those three definitions into three different lines to accomplish kind of the purpose of what you're looking to do which is set the framework for delineations okay cool t trade
um just bookmarking it so there we go that one there when we get to the stable please hold me to that Steve sure okay um go back we did that one let me
figure out where we left off we'll get there did that one recreational facilities okay so this was a new definition steve you had it it's you know tennis and other playing courts an establishment for recreational amusement or
entertainment purposes carried on in whole or in part outdoors which may include as an accessory use the consumption of food and drink such facilities shall include sports and athletic fields playing courts skating rinks skateboards bicycle parks swimming
pools so and then the sub definitions there are what we have in the new uses table correct right so we have small scale indoor and just indoor no we currently have recreation small
scale recreation commercial indoor recreation commercial outdoor so we don't have anything for recreational indoor period recreational small scale indoor my recommendation was just to make it that second definition we don't have anything
called out specifically it would just basically be commercial my my idea was to simpl simplify it into two categories you have indoor recreation which is just indoor only again the small scale part of it is not actually apply there's no thing that makes it small scale compared to any
other business it's just the wording uh and then we have recreational facilities that are sometimes outside that's really the only two variations whether they're commercial or not do we need four definitions for like non-commercial recreation and commercial recreation
as soon as you say you're charging a fee it's commercial i was just saying if we didn't have a use table line for that second definition then they would default to whatever was allowed in the commercial about charging a fee no the recreation indoor cuz we don't if we didn't have a line for
it i mean we've talked about small scale but not having a scale is there something stopping us from saying paul and I had a discussion about it and there seemed to be uh while we felt that yes we should
probably define what small scale is we kept having difficulty um one example was the place where my nephew goes for baseball training a guy built a barn in his backyard and it's got a baseball diamond
inside and he handles three kids at a time in his backyard i would call that small scale but it's not going to fit under a accessory use so it's not not something we need to worry about but he's charging a fee for it's an
accessory use to the property assuming he lives on the property okay so it doesn't matter i'm just using it as an example where if we set a if we set a Yeah square footage then we are potentially eliminating it so one of the compromises that I suggested to Paul was
do what we did with light manufacturing where if there was a question as to whether it qualified as light or in this case small scale the building inspector and the planning director would make that determination so that we didn't unnecessarily
I mean limit by saying it's got to be less than 10,000 or whatever the number is i was going to say smaller than that so is it could I ask right now the use table has smallcale recreation potentially allowed in residential
that's the proposal we've switched that to by permit yes right so if we're going to allow it in a residential zone I think it I would And the do we put a size restriction or
not on it i would lean towards yes okay i I would lean towards yes um but now we're putting a restriction wherever else it is in village commercial does it have a limit or do we have to have another use
for the same definition or do we have to make another use for recreational indoor facility that's different again this is why I tried to simplify it into two categories and instead of arguing my point could anybody analyze it and tell me what mine doesn't cover that the
current definition does better so the I I I rearranged it cuz it was kind of the side by side here just to to see here right now we're just seeing the simple markup is that Well the one below it is recreation indoor that was my That
was my version no the the the following one recreational commercial facility indoor so there's two recreational indoor definitions right now right yep the page break country back up a little bit and then there's two more
for recreational commercial facility indoor and outdoor like it's very okay so indoor and outdoor commercial or not two definitions but your definition says for a fee as
soon as you're charging a fee i didn't add that mark did no it's okay okay it doesn't no recreation indoor is yours the blue one's yours this Sorry I think I'm sharing no you're not i'm highlighting it recreation indoor is a
new one and it says that occurs indoors for a fee or admission charge that makes it commercial could we get rid of for a fee i I'm I'm fine with getting rid of the 4A fee it was Mark's addition to the the
wording I think originally then what's then I guess I'm confused as to what the intent is to be differentiating it from the definition that Mark gave us which is recreation commercial facility indoor other than it says commercial
facility there were so many definitions oh no thrown around for the recreational table i have recommended the same thing two definitions that's my simple solution regardless of how we got here or anything I'm just saying two
definitions are Are you proposing to strike the other one I guess is my question or is this an addition to so you're looking for recreational indoor and outdoor periods i'm That's what I Yes i I don't think we need smallcale indoor recreation just indoor
recreation covers it or or are we making like four or five different categories are we doing a a commercial indoor and a non-commercial indoor are we doing a commercial outdoor and a non-commercial outdoor and a small scale right like that's we don't need
all of those categories it's just recreation commercial or not that takes place indoor and commercial or or recreation that commercial or not that takes place outdoor okay that seems like to cover anything i don't think there's any part not covered by it i think it's gotten more
complicated around me i think this I think the complication is potentially coming from the small scale and which always existed actually yeah i didn't Yeah so that's a hold over
yeah the if we're not going to keep it as a are we looking to keep small right now we have smallcale indoor recreation as by permit in the draft and residential correct that was the proposal to differentiate
it between just recreational indoor because it already existed and you know the thought was okay we're looking at art dance exercise martial arts studio something thinking like those martial arts studio that's right next to the house
basically exactly so where you know okay let's do the two separate definitions small scale and otherwise indoor and allow the small scale stuff to potentially go in residential areas by special permit was
the driving factor there okay so so again just a does my definition indoor recreation change smallcale indoor recreation does it is it different in what it allows or does it basically cover exactly the same
thing just slightly worded other than small scale putting small scale on it and giving the teeth to the town decides if it's small or not i think the uses are fairly similar it's just providing what the differentiation would only be
needed if we were going to try and differentiate them and how we're going to zone them and in this case I think based on the current draft we are so right now we're differentiating
between small and not small and how we're permitting that use so can I just ask a clarifying question is recreation indoor meant to replace the definition for smallcale or the definition for recreation commercial
indoor or both both yeah steve's looking for two definitions entirely okay i'm just looking for the build whether it's commercial or not is not the important part to me i don't think there's going to be many not commercial recreational facilities being built but yeah
yeah but like Weaten baseball fields that's in the residential zone yep those are recreational matter still but like the point is it's not a baseball field in the neighborhood is traditional it's not disruptive it's like what kids
should have that these things recreational facilities should be in residential zones that's that's why kids just go out and vandalize things all day i've been I've lived here for 40 years almost we've still not had a skate park but where do you think we're going
to go you going to go in front of a building and skate there instead like kids need something to do and to be honest not everybody can buy the commercial properties we have very limited commercial properties and kids aren't traveling into the center to go
do their things so the intent of a small scale is basically to allow something in residential right yes by the intent yeah right so why don't we just call it that that' be a third use
i'll grant you that but be that way we can separate that out and maybe tie it to something similar to what the ad already does right for size like a percentage no greater than 900 or a,000 and that and that that kind of covers you know keeping it residential but but
also letting it be useful we don't tie it to fees or anything then we'll have two other definitions for stuff outside residentials if we're going to attach a size limit to it I'm cool with keeping it as a separate thing but from what I
saw is just I I had a bunch of categories i redefined them and then also was given a list of a bunch of new definitions that were added by Mark and I'm just trying to figure out where the where it goes from there uh I don't have
there were more definitions added by Mark to this so that that complicates this i'm I'm trying to argue against something that was added yeah um so I don't see any need
for commercial indoor and indoor i think those are pretty much the same same thing with outdoor so we can go from five to three whichever ones we choose and then the
only question is do we have an additional carve out for a small scale or do we just say indoor recreation and just have a like is there a bylaw thing that says indoor recreation cannot exceed a certain size in the residential
zone does it have to be another definition or is it like a designer you can say You could say small scale recreation it's a separate definition anyway even if you take out the uses it's still the
C usees defined below size limitation X um that's how I would you could do it that way if we're going to put a size to it then it makes sense to have three three uses but other than that it's just indoor and outdoor in my mind yeah and
if you want to say what is [Music] the the scale of small scale if we're going to put a number on it or a percentage or specific thoughts or comments there i
can't imagine many like arcades bowling alleys laser tag facilities or gymnasiums that are going to be too small i don't want a laser tag facility though well it's in there i I mean I don't mind it i don't mind the idea but I don't think it's
going to be small commercial fine i have no idea if I do no problems with the kids in Foxboro Park but but to Laura's point about the guy that built the barn what if he puts like a batting cage back there creates you know if we don't put
So it doesn't matter but I understand what you're saying i'm saying we scale the size like if all suddenly this becomes Yeah um right now we're at 10,000 square ft right so the sizing if we're not
My mind would say 10,000 or maybe smaller well then we already have that limit for what where 10,000 ft² any commercial facility is a special permit to go more than 10,000 ft in residential in our uses table
any commercial facility over 10 yeah so so we wouldn't have to add a scale so then we don't need the new definition and it can be two now that I think about it you can have those 9,9990 ft buildings are not small no I'm
thinking about the one next to the dance studio in old colony that's big again this is on residential right so maybe make a percentage like 75 no no larger than 75% of the residential building on the property no this is to
be on its own property this is not primary use so it would have to be it would just be like any other building there's no percentage percentage for other things um
I percentage of the lot on an R80 this is probably high but I'll say 5,000 then if you want to go to 5,000 it's by permit if you're over 10 you're in standard commercial
building so you're going by those rigs i'm just thinking of roughly half of that building on the colony next to uh whatever the dance studio is which one oh the new cheerleading place no no
um down past no further down yeah yeah yeah the newer one that's That's under 10 that's under 10 it was like 99 something because they sell those prefab to be just under 10,000 square foot requirements
just to meet bylaws like ours all right that is big yeah so that's that's my scale of like you could put a big thing in there yeah so I would that's why I'm thinking the dance studio is probably about five yeah i mean I'd like the use
to determine it but I understand if if we need it so that would be my square footage then that would be my my light red line if anybody wants to move try and move me off it then go for it i know I'm
just one voice i'm just trying to think i I I live on a 5,000t yard so I'm trying to picture what I could do on it i certainly can't hit a baseball practice you have the netting it's if it's small if you want to have a
small scale it's I just want to make sure it fits in the residence so I think 5,000's appropriate i'm I'm okay with it uh yeah that's fine with me i I don't mind okay 5,000 sounds good in the residential zone that sounds like we're down to three definitions yes that's so
cool paul we would do we have Laura do you have you've been I'll say it again through the trenches with these do you have specific things that you would want to call out between indoor and commercial facility i think they're largely the same i no
objections to using Steve's revisions yeah I don't understand the the nuances between them significant so I would delete the ones that say commercial facility in the middle um more talking about the uses in
general the Yeah i Yeah i don't know i don't know why we added a whole new list of things yeah we have objections to deleting the one that say commercial facility in the middle of the title for
both indoor and outdoor well you can't delete outdoor cuz we don't have a replacement for outdoor no I think that's we do it's just recreational facility whether it takes place indoor or outdoors oh is that why we have two definitions i covered it no cuz we have recreational facility
defined and then a new definition called recreational facilities i'm telling you Mark added a bunch of stuff and it confused everybody okay yeah the one that's recreational facilities was the for primarily outdoor use
okay so I'm sorry I'm confused the blue So we we only had four we didn't have five great um so commercial facility outdoor we have commercial facility
indoor and then we have just indoor so I'll go back to the other point in reverse the the commercial recreational outdoor thing Mark added that and all those things were added in by Mark driving range golf course golf course is listed separately on our uses table by the way bathing beach which is in
passive recreation sports club which would fall under a club category which we also have horseback riding stable which would go under agriculture with the horse farm boat house which would probably fall in a club game preserve which would be a lodge or club situation
i mean all of those things fall under other uses it's Yeah okay so so Steve if you don't like that definition I don't what would be the replacement is it on the page i put it
there in mine bro paul is it just not showing up with the track the markup the recreational facilities just which one is just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing recreational facilities so that one okay so those aren't sub definitions that's just an
indent yeah this was the this was Steve's so So Steve's suggestion would be recreational facilities period it has everything and then the only other definition would be small scale indoor
is that correct yes okay our growth program my apologies that it took me 15 minutes to get that's that's literally the two just the two lines okay that's what I said so we have So do we feel like there's a need to differentiate indoor and outdoor
i I think we're specific about the indoor one i think for the other one it can be indoor or outdoor it's a facility that takes place everybody i I would love to the whole meeting but I'm going to get back to my place have a good night Pete i'm envious of you Peter you take me with you
i think it depends on if we had different I don't remember what we had for allowances in the use table if they were separate allowances we need separate intermissions okay I think we've un we now understand what we're talking about now so in our
uses table we have recre commercial recreational facilities I think as it's listed and small scale indoor recreation then we also have like passive recreation and that kind of stuff but for these two we have we have two liner essentially all I did was remove commercial from commercial recreational
facilities okay is this replacing that [Music] yes cuz this already existed this I'm assuming is new from you well this doesn't exist mark added it it's not what's written in our uses table
everything's being confused because Well I get it but yeah I mean we we're taking what the the lawyer provided us as definitions we don't need to like it but I I I mean let's
I'll give Mark a lot of credit for his work but he's not imperfect he's definitely made some mistakes here oh yeah and we all have um but my question is is this to replace that okay is that the intent that's all I'm
trying to establish my argument wasn't to replace i was defining what is in our thing now okay like we have a use okay recreational facilities including tennis and other
playing courts this is the definition for that okay which explains striking this so meaning this is the main category and the subcategories fall under it or is this there was no subcategories is irrelevant okay there is no subcategories that's
where I got confused okay i'm there too so So it's just these two so that's all I'm recommending so the recommendation from Steve is recreational facilities the definition right there on the screen and then the extra delineation for a small scale indoor for
additional potential permitting and that's it yes so that would delete recreational facility above and recreation indoor recreational commercial outdoor recreational commercial indoor below it
no i think he wants to keep recreation indoor no or now am I confused no he wants one facility i only want the two blue ones that That is it these are the only two but if unless I'm wrong Tim just said we're going to stripe
recreation indoor that's what you want right you want recreational facilities and then small scale only that's the That's not what he wants no my recommendation was recreational facilities which covers indoor or outdoor of whatever scale yes and then just indoor recreation we just scratched
the small scale cuz there was no scale to it and it just means the recreation all takes place indoor there is no outdoor component but we just added that 5,000 square foot we just did that's why like so we can separate the two there if you want but the recommendation was made
prior to any scaling sorry so we have recreational facilities is the I'll call it the parent and we recreation is recreation indoor and then we've added a delineation for smallcale indoor
so I would if if I was going to add the delineation I I don't need like I would still like my definition of indoor recreation but just include the small scale and put the the size yeah I'm getting there i'm getting there um
so with those three do we have any objections and then I'm going to propose a simplification small scale indoor okay so then we can so we're so commercial facility where both of the
indoor and outdoor deleted okay so what I would do is I would Paul can you put recreation indoor small scale below recreation indoor and then
say the definition would be smallcale recreational use indoor recreation as defined above and then delete everything in the
middle and then as and then and then delete everything including here in and replace it with and so small scale thing that we say qualifies so if somebody came up with a
weird wacky thing at 4,999 square ft and you didn't like it we could say no and then such we have the size I'm comfortable where it is now any objections okay let's move
on i have deleted three lines of text okay we're done with those up here those are the ones that we added with the new one I think so that one's already covered
uh we just moved this one SPGA nothing that's fine steve added studio as a use so visual and performance art studios galleries this is a primary use
um so you're thinking like Mass Arts Center or something pretty much and where do we have this in the uses table right now we don't um it's just in small scale indoor recreation just art or dance or martial arts studio so there's no specific use table
requirement for studio at this point no but there's no ex uh like exhibition space or anything either right uh concert halls and theater was added by Mark to recreational facilities i have no objection to that definition
especially if nothing's tied to it then I don't if it's not tied to the uses table that seems like an appropriate definition for a studio i I I did suggest adding it to the uses table separately but that's that's yeah
I that's a good definition for studio if we don't add it separately that's still the definition but yeah I think that's appropriate for a definition for studio is that all the wording notes and then we're on the uses table yes so I'm going to remove that
okay and then we may need to bring it back up i said don't close it no I I know but um All right is that your cup or did somebody leave that in front of you [Music] i think somebody left it oh that's be
Gavin's Gavin had it i don't have his uh I'm not connected with him but we can probably snag it for him later we can bring it to on finance on Monday yep one for everyone okay so this is now the again the
updated use table um um so here are some let me just start flagging these so um so Steve went ahead and added expanded on multif family dwelling
because typically what we do is we have it as three or more units steve had a a category multif family up to four units and then a multif family commercial five or more units and then with that uh his thoughts
on where it should be allowed so okay so we have just restate that again Paul so if we have uh let me switch it to
Yeah you had the right tab i can clarify it if you'd like oh just just Yeah sure we have multif family in our uses table right now it's three or more units uh so I just suggest that we separate it between non-commercial and
commercial essentially um anything five or more units is a commercial building i mean four or less is like the traditional quadlex and non-commercial tax rate um and it sort of defines it gives us a better at least one gradient
of zoning multif family and the only change to the uses table is that you have no pulled no out of our 40 and so you made you've made no changes to multif family
up to four and you've made multif family five or more more restricted that's what I've done yes okay comments thoughts i mean I think it it does it not make sense i'm inclined to go with it unless we
somebody feels there's an objection here okay with regards to the MBTA where we just said NBT anything multif family is three units or older within that overlay it's a separate set
of zone rules okay also I don't think we defined how many units we just said multif family does in the presentation that we're given okay I think it said multif family is three or more but the overlay language is separate from base zoning
language So it just override both of them it would just be choose your own adventure right yeah you have to choose the overlay or you choose the zone okay so any no objections to adding the additional differentiation for five or more units and restricting
it from our 40 if not let's move on top of the shop we have a a suggestion to add planning board approval and residential to top of the shop instead of no
again with the new definition it would be limited to only the things that are allowed in that district it's not a way not a way to sneak anything you couldn't throw an industrial use below residential no or or a warehouse or Yeah
or even most most things could possibly schoolness into residential potentially only the things that are already allowed in the residential zone right but we're
not limiting the scale well if it's top of the shop it's going to be scaled by the size of somebody's house probably right but I mean look at the house he just showed it it's also not impossible for us to
have I see the the 10,000 square foot limit i'm sorry is there time for speaker no I hear you i was trying to get through everything and hope we could address whatever comments were outstanding before I called you up here
um at this point I think I'm going back on my thought process there um to the use table specifically did you want to make comments now okay i was trying to pick off all the low hanging fruit and then you would go everything's perfect not that that would
happen but I was going to try i want I want to thank you guys for putting the work you did on on the body of it it's a herculean task and I really want to compliment you for it i I wrote I wrote to the board i think you may have circulated my my concern um I I I dispute some of these and whatever i'm
sorry or in seagull 280 uh but the description of what's in in the in the warrant is basically limited to to reorganize and create new numbering systems that's fine beyond that I think
it's it's legitimate to say to the to the community we did that in addition to introducing current law that we need to comply with my question first starts with when someone comes to town meeting what are they going to get i saw Mark give
a months ago a brief outline major non major i don't know whe they're going to highlight anything are they going to get a copy of a 174 page bylaw before they as they walk in and are they going to be sitting there looking at a use table and trying to find a definition in a 174
page document the question I have is the things you're doing are are right and need to be done i think if you just look to the description of what you're saying to the to the community you're doing I think they're going to step back and they're they're going to roll their eyes at all this if you tell them it's
basically reorganizing renumbering and bringing us up into compliance everybody will say goodbye fine you start introducing things and I don't know which one will trigger somebody but it may even trigger me for sakes some of these things where you're introducing commercial things into residential areas
and you're okay you you minimize one but all of that is just raising questions and if I see those questions then I question what's in this 174 page document and I just I I I sitting I understand where you're coming from but if I were presenting it I would want to
stay away from that there's plenty of opportunities to come back to the to the use table and many things that probably are warranted the reorganization is fine steve has taken things and put them where they should be that's okay and that falls under the what you've said but when you take it to the next step
you're you're losing the credibility with with with the town and at this next meeting that's the last thing you want to do okay and I I I think I've indicated that the things I have complaints with i'm not going to it's late you guys know what they are i can
raise them again and again and I'm happy to raise them in a different form in a different location but I would urge them stay away from the next meeting thank you i say this is going to come before we talk about it at BTA so this will be the first right right and it just it
just sets up the community for Yes we have discussions about what belongs in your codification throughout this whole process so yeah thank you um Yeah so Warren's comments we've heard them before we've heard them again this
evening i agree i think it's going to money the water and create a whole lot of trouble so are we specific are we talking about the line item at top of the shop there when we talk about the introduction I know one of the things you talked about was the winery and the
horiculture and all that stuff all a sudden now someone adds that i agree with you so um Jim do you have any objection to going back to the the line by line
here i'm trying to get through this i'm okay with not pushing top of the shop okay just I'm fine with getting through it i think it's a good idea i But I don't need to defend it right now oh yeah i think it's a good idea but I think it I I think he's right it should
be se separate discussion again I'm coming from the point of stuff was getting changed around me so why why would I not throw my suggestions in oh I know so that's that's where I'm coming from and you know the there's a presupposition to
this whole thing that we are adding commercial uses to the residential zone that wasn't my initial start although I support it the rest of the board said we should put arcades and all this stuff in the residential i like that but I don't
think I'm the I'm the only one suggesting uh if we're going to put arcades or whatever why not let it be under somebody's house on the bottom floor that's sort of I think I still have your original use table suggestion from 3 years ago oh god yeah that one yeah it's outdated now but use it as a
good uh reference for growth so um so top of the shop and commercial that seems to make sense i would absolutely am right it should be in a commercial if you want to have a shop and put something on top of it yeah I think that
fits in a commercial zone yeah that is Yeah that's the store with the apartment on top y strangely enough it is not allowed in our current bylaws in commercial yeah right multif family use it don't let's not take our current
bylaws as what should be here we have an MBTA for that we're okay okay next line is mixed use is that a new addition line we didn't have mixed use in the That's a new addition
so again are we advocating for mixed use in the residential zone i considering our discussion we just had or probably should just kind of push off at at that restrictive
so restrict mixed use from the residential zone also I think they're pretty equal we're either it's either I mean both of them are mixing it's just on top or next to each other they're both commercial uses in
the residential zone if we're going to permit one I don't see why the other one wouldn't right would just be introducing commercial uses into residential so is the and again it would still be only the uses that are allowed in that district anyway so like residential
could go there and a daycare could go on the same lot and maybe a farm you could have multiple primary uses or whatever but only what's already allowed in the residential zone nothing that wouldn't be there anyways so it's I can
advocate for it but I'm not going to fight it so the two paths are allowing it by permit in the residential zones or Derrick's point copying what we just discussed for top of the shop is that correct correct i think approaching it
next time will be the better bet okay there you go so if we didn't have such a big thing with the MBTM trying to get through this could be an entirely different picture but that's not what's going to happen i've talked
about white blocking recotification even I thought every day was going to be done and it wasn't um there is there was discussion about mobile home and whether we should remove the temporary parentheticals from the existing
bylaw i assume that's what the highlights for right yeah now the temporary was removed because the definition of mobile home that we currently have allows for temporary but it allows for not temporary as well
correct both so we So you're saying we need a def a new definition or a separate line item for She's saying the current definition covers both options whereas our but it doesn't have a restriction on temporary use correct in
definition um I I believe anybody should be able to build their house however they want so if they want to put a mobile one there that's their choice that's their choice that's a personal freedom has nothing to do with us if the building department says it's fine it's fine if
the building commissioner or whatever if it fits the standards it meets all the setbacks it meets code why are we going to deny a building that meets code i think the the concern that had been raised was in terms of fitting with the neighborhood and things like that
[Music] um so that's a question here for Yeah that's a self-determination versus neighborhood character discussion I guess um on paper right now it is planning
board in residential and in village commercial and no elsewhere any any suggested changes there we're moving on to row eight row eight right sorry row seven seven
okay so tourist home i see two track changes which put yes from playing board in BCC and yes from no in commercial
tourist home by our definition is basically like is like an ownero occupied house which has rooms to rent correct yes um the which feels more definitely village commercial fits but how does
commercial fit i I I feel like it was already I I think in our uses table it was already allowed one of them it says no the track changes for yes i was thinking no for commercial agreed no for commercial then that's
fine with me but yes for and then BCC yes and is it by right in BCC or is it special permit so well one more thing then we're getting into uh top of the shop if we're going to do that in commercial what are the housing we're allowing allowing on
top so right now would it be limited to the hotels senior housing and long-term care um because nothing's allowed is that why cuz we've gone back to has to follow the underlying
zone um yeah this is where we get to layers on ourselves mhm um okay let's do let's finish tourist home first and then we can go back to that for a second here you got to do you need the
definition of a tourist home no i So I'm just asking I think I would be inclined just to leave it at planning board rather than change it agreed agreed yeah okay so that's for tourist home in row
seven so the question is now for top of the shop Steve h that's what you're asking for top of the shop uh well for top of the shop in the commercial zone right now we have no residential uses allowed in the
commercial zone is that what you're Well our residential uses on that chart in the residential chart would be hotels or motel uh bed and breakfast bed and breakfast is allowed in that's why bed and breakfast is allowed in commercial so that's why I said tourist home should be allowed okay bed and breakfast is by
right so that single family home with four with three guests or a single family home with up to 10 guests yeah i guess the question would be do we want to allow any residential and commercial so do we remove bed and breakfast or do
we update tourism because right now bed and breakfast is allowed by right i'm inclined i mean there is a difference there is um I'd say bed and breakfast is a
commercial use tourist home is where somebody lives agreed a tourist home is I mean they have the same rules it's just more rooms and they don't have to provide breakfast but a tourist home somebody could just live there permanently no they can't they literally
can only stay for 14 days yeah cuz we went through it with It's not lodging it's not the same East Main there's no But what comes first here on the tourist home like what comes first it's cuz if we're talking residential and commercial
how are you getting it there to begin with i think with tourist home and bed and breakfast it's an anomaly mediation in town a tourist home has no restriction on time spent there i I don't believe
that's true no I understand the actual definition i understand okay and then we have lodging and boarding establishment hotel or motel in row eight here so we have we
have already struck lodging and boarding establishments months ago okay so it should be just hotel and motel Laura yes strike it and then the suggested change
is to go from yes to planning board and commercial and industrial for those uses i see no I see no issues with that yeah okay done next ones are the senior housing and
long-term care we've added now the not senior housing long-term care definition which we needed the only differentiation is that it's not allowed in VCC but they are but
senior housing are allowed by special permit i think we had to by law i don't think we could restrict it was the issue so the only reason for the differentiation is because we can is
that I I think I don't know i would have made them a line but I understand the need for two definitions in two different lines um my feeling would be to match them that was my thought is it mirror senior
housing cuz the use is pretty much the same just the age of the person inside yeah in theory yes objections nope okay that's true yes or in single category um
one thing that I'd like to point out you wrapped in senior housing into senior housing facility the facilities are more of a commercial operation um and the the h the senior housing is is a residential area that's typically just by special
permit the problem is under the facility we have a number of restrictions that really wouldn't apply to senior housing such as transportation services public safety and possible dimensions and setback requirements that don't exist now other than what what's normally in
the in the in the zone my suggestion would be this separates senior housing listed in addition to senior housing facility and leave that separate because it's not it doesn't fall under the facility uh definition very well it has its own definition of being 55 and over
and it's typically been just subject to a special permit within a within a residential area because it is a residential housing as opposed to the others being more commercial i I did write that in my suggestion and it said senior housing or senior housing facil or senior care facility it should
be end it's either one they're both allowed or or end either either way but so in terms of So is the slash what we're talking about here it's just not having senior housing as a standalone
it is about having a stand yeah he said well that's what I mean like we don't have that as a standalone that's his thing is that it's not separated as it has been it was it was right and I'm just saying leave it there you can add in addition to senior housing facility and have the same apply but then you may
need to change that definition because right now this the facility includes senior housing and and it has requirements that that don't apply to senior housing wouldn't the definition below that cover senior housing that's not covered under No it's senior housing should be alone
and then senior care facility would all technically fall under longterm care facilities they they Well the problem is we already have a long-term care facility definition under senior housing facility
yeah Mark complicated it by doing that we had two separate things we had one for people who are in we did one definition we have one the one definition that's the state regs or the standard rags and we have one definition that's not age restricted
those are the two things that we should have here yes and the not ones that are not age restricted should apply to all ages yeah that's long-term care facilities hospital that's line 13 or 12 12 it should be 12 um so that covers any age
group right including seniors correct senior housing is just a 55 year and up community okay by making senior care facility Mark complicated that
okay so the suggestion Steve is to copy row 11 and just make it senior housing as a second row we just have senior housing and then a separate option a senior care facility would cover it but it's redundant senior care
facility just exists within long-term care facilities it was an unneeded addition the only purpose of it was to create a cluster where it was both senior housing senior housing and then 12 becomes longterm care facility just
scrap senior care facility and get rid of it it was an unneeded addition and complication so just keep senior housing just senior housing for 11 i would keep senior housing facility cuz that matches the actual definition but that changes
it the definition broke what was there the definition but it says C 8.3 and 8.3 is senior housing facility right i've been bringing this up for a month it should have been fixed last month we're at the end date i agree it should
have been fixed already so we have so leave facility in there paul you have to write or then or something senior housing or senior housing facility i'm fine with that senior
housing or senior housing facility so that way it's differentiated between senior housing and senior housing facility no I agree i know this is something that we've talked that's one of those things I feel like we talks about it four times and we keep talking about and Mark keeps saying it's
protected so yes so he feels like we're adding redundancies so um I think that's okay let's keep going okay right off the bat line seven scratch that we don't hear it
okay it's in the other Sorry no hospital but that passive recreation doesn't belong there either but the hospital 7 that's covered under long-term care facilities hospitals nursing like that's another redundant nobody added that except
Lauren okay um Okay objections i don't have any i don't know we just covered it in long-term care basically it literally says hospitals
okay on the other line all right but I'm pretty sure we have a definition for hospital don't we it still fits in the other line it says hospitals okay i'm fine with that okay medical center and
clinic that's a difference yes we have that allowed and everything that says commercial yep good yes okay okay that row will go away eventually
okay funeral establishment is that a new row or is that just clarification it It's new wording it Mark did it but it's actually It just includes all the different funeral facilities and crematorium type stuff like it's just inclusive just a more inclusive
definition with no changes to use no objections for my part anybody else okay we have club or lodge private fraternal lodge or other nonprofit civic use fraternal lodge and other nonprofit
civic uses the wording we already have so we're adding club or lodge private i I would think we just stick with what when you search online for like fraternal lodge or nonprofit that that's what comes up with like government data and tax information i'm pretty sure the
definition of club or lodge private also just says fraternal lodge or other civic use but whatever so your recommendation is to accept the adjustment to the definition they can both stay that's fine okay no
objections we have another setting for nonprofit health and recreational clubs oh we're not there yet that's covered in the other one that we have that moved over to the other table deleted yep
there's probably going to be some extra rows in there so we have open space agriculture and outdoor uses we've gone back on this a bunch of times i don't we're not allowed to put planning board approval
on if they're master qualify right no this is under oh under so planning board is only for the properties under and that little one next to it is the stipulation it should be written somewhere on that i think you right underneath it says like all qualifying
parcels will be allowed okay yeah so scroll up here again sorry so we're changing yes to planning board approved other than in
re that's what it already exists as I think most for a lot of it um so it already says planning board basically it well the only there's no in the village commercial village center core
commercial zone uh there's just no potential for any agriculture so that's a switch okay by planning board approval um yeah the the challenge was seeing the wise and
then seeing the the why is because the other wording says on a qualified parcel is allowed right which we don't really need to right understood yeah um so the change in the
recotification theory is to allow the potential for planning board approval of agricultural uses in commercial and industrial zones that would be the only result of this yeah are we comfortable with that change or
do we feel that that's something that is something we want to look at later look at later but I will say that that this I won't be part of that looking at later i'll hedge mine yeah I don't have any objection to
it i mean where do you see it being done i could see being done for marijuana different table different table different uses different laws even and and the Supreme Supreme Court's already even for the grow side yeah they've
already ruled on it it's all under its own somebody tried growing it in a greenhouse under agriculture and then it got denied after you have to have all sorts of security and stuff okay so the existing use table for this
says no in VCC and I Mhm is that is that correct that's what it says okay so our choices are to allow it by permit in the industri in the commercial zones or not jim you've said no but I am also
understanding that I'm not going to you were a voting member of this body at this moment in time others I'm okay with making it the no if that's what the board wants i'm totally cool with it being special permit
i I'm not against okay farming without hearing a strong preference either way I'm leaning towards leave it the way it is which would put is it so is it allowed by planning board
approval in the other R zones or is it just allowed yeah it's allowed in RE agriculture is my right in re right as it is right now then uh by approval in the other residential zones i think there's
another line like line six is the other line that gets replaced by that okay so but VCC and to the right would be known is that okay existing okay so Paul for row one
no for village commercial as well it would still be a no with the stipulation that we can't deny it if it's a parcel large enough yes but that goes without saying sure
yes i'm sorry no and then you're going to accept the other insertions for the other columns to match the existing even though it doesn't show as the
existing because the overwrites got um because of how the definitions have shifted so we're going to have to just delete the extra wide um so in R60 is planning board is the existing
okay and R40 correct and then we would remove the Y's up yeah and then the adjustments [Music] on the wording for these definitions I
have no objections to cuz we're already saying that we already know that if you can do it by state law that it doesn't matter so use Steve's insertion i mean it's basically Steve and Mark essentially at this point there's been so many versions of that it's pretty
It's just reward it's the same thing so I'll just go with the red that's what we just did for Yeah yeah and then I'll just delete this okay no objections to those two number
two and three and then for four that's removed by number one it's redundant okay number six is also removed by number one i don't know
um okay so six is removed yes it is i don't know why the Y's are all there that's okay we're removing six it doesn't matter um five probably under five years less than acres rabbits
up cage personal use um oh that that's the one that probably should be wise though that's probably where it meant to go paul when you switched it oh five oh okay you
didn't yeah so is the suggestion to add the domestic species or adjust it to replace our to replace the the 12 or under for
personal use to their own there's a there's a whole list online of all the the species it's just inclusive and u what's what is the uh the uh the allowances by zoning
district so R80 it it would be yes across the board across the board in my opinion um just for the existing use well existing is right it's right there no so it's not so which category so hold on so before you
make useless so for properties under the one that says grabs are mostly not roosters the existing use table says I know it's yes yes yes special permit no special permit special permit so the existings were
correct so one do we want to adjust the definition to just refer to CMR9 or do we want to keep our own definition where we're rooster discriminating i prefer the mass
definition with all the animals allowed it just lists everything that's allowed it's we don't specify if somebody can have a turtle or a lizard or hamsters or this is just domestic species whatever is
allowed but not for commercial not for a farming operation it says for personal use yeah if somebody really likes lizards bearded dragons are cute they are i don't have the objection to going to the
mass list [Music] um yeah and then do we want to I think I would probably keep the allowances there yeah keep them the same that's fine is this accurate what's here
they're not bad yes yeah Laura I read that back sorry okay do you need it again is this yes yes yes playing board no playing board playing board no yes correct
it's like I'm getting good at this uhoh we still have attendees here they just haven't worked out yet probably fall asleep okay how okay let's see so uh number nine and number 10 can
we move those to the recreation table they they don't really fit the agricultural table i thought we already did that it should have okay let's So 8 9 and 10 or just eight
or just just n just the ones that say recreational okay so hold on let's hold on a second so dog kennel daycare veterinary facility that's a new definition it's or just a refined definition it's a refined definition okay so let's accept that
i think it combines a few uses but they had Do you have any objections to the specific definitions for an item 10 my only thing was about the non-commercial but we think we've already covered it so I'm good so let's accept those two definitions before we
move but the my only thing is it says non-commercial and then it says whether a fee is charged or not does that Mark added that whether a fee is charged or not it doesn't matter yeah okay get rid of it does it make it
doesn't matter just Okay no whether a fees charge or not so the parks and recreation commission could charge a fee to do something it could be for just parking okay so once we've accepted them then we can plug them at the end
yeah that's just moving stuff around but then it moves clean let's power through here guys I'm trying my eyes are going crosseyed we have an option i'll just move this no we don't
okay yeah the option is to come back tomorrow and do this up some more so move it there okay perfect well it looks like it's already added there on seven i thought it had already been moved it's okay we've moved it away from the other
okay so so it is up there the passive is at the top it's a little different so delete the one in pink well the one in pink was my suggestion to make it all by right also
the two that just got moved in there didn't need to get moved in there they were just redundant they They were already in that chart they were just also in the community chart okay so delete these yeah so they were duplicative so they need to be deleted anyway okay now let's go back
up so we have the changes here i should have spec okay so for in the pink is that the whole definition is
struck through is that it shouldn't be okay so we have passive outdoor use right now that is everywhere well Steve's suggesting it everywhere right now it is planning board approval and not industrial as much as I like
parks I'm not I don't see it as worth a change at this point agreed agreed fun and we're not And the only material change is industrial because everything else is planning
so we're just keeping ourselves there i'm comfortable so indoor recreation this is where the our other discussion is going to tie in here so we do have small scale
still and we're allowing that only by special permit in the residential zones so small scale needs to be there so as we talked through the definition I think we were going to allow it so I don't think there's anything to talk
about here since we've limited scope and size and we have it by planning board and then the only other differentiation is that we would need recreational facilities period
i'm I'm sorry on the rec small scale that is except those okay except the because we eliminated because we've we talked through the size limitation for that thinking of like the martial arts studio on Mansfield Avenue or something
like that um so the only remaining definition that we would need for recreation facilities is one definition correct that's what I based on what I said yeah
so right now since we have multiple ones here with different allowances my inclination is to go with so recreational facilities we have indoor and outdoor definitions we still have i think number
four was the one that we have in our our thing right now number three is the addition okay so do we need number three no so three is out but do we have separate definitions for
indoor and outdoor or just the one i think we have definitions for it but so okay I think we tabled it until we looked at the use table because we had different allowances depending on whether it was indoor or
outdoor okay so I would say any objections to removing three and removing outdoor from number four and having those rules apply for everything no objection
having which rules apply to everything the ones four so I'm sorry with with four let let us agree before you do it no I'm I'm just trying to get clarification here on four three is out so we would remove
outdoor for number four four we just cover facilities that may or may not be outdoor exactly so that would cover that and in terms of the rules that apply right now it would be playing
board yes and commercial industrial planning board and village commercial the proposal I would say leave that alone since we have added the small scale above so we're saying if it's small scale you can put it in residential
otherwise you can't I'm a big advocate for recreation but we have more meetings in the future we can table it for now you can I'll advocate for more later I'd also recommend not striking out the exclusions
no objection to that so keep the not including not including drive-ins and not less than 150 ft from a residential boundary that'll raise keep it and then uh where it's allowed so we're keeping the removing all the additions we're
rejecting them should should are we just no change but for village commercial should or should it just be a yes we going to deny recreation there planning for
it they're planning for it yeah either way so so Paul in VCC planning board there you go so
five that is allowing for more uses in residential than was previously is that correct or is that just definition clarification of for which one five that would be allowing it in the residential where
it's currently not uh the the definition is what it is in our thing okay i mean the the language the word nonprofit membership and the differentiation between we're getting kicked out we're getting and the differentiation between it's
12:00 and the clock just between 5 and 6 funny jesus and the and the differentiation between five and 95 oh hold on i got to bring this up now um health information there's a the only
differentiation is that it's allowed by there's no differentiation in the uses in the proposed uses my inclination would be to leave it as it is by keeping the two different definitions and it looks like six for recreational
camp is just a clarification of the definition is that correct yeah it's just to allow overnights recreational camp as Yeah so so Paul on number five you can accept the new definition
or Yeah and then reject those four and then accept all the row below that since they'll be the same or not the same but close enough i think that's fine and then
we're accepting the unit for six no no uh yeah that's fine okay I'll have to reumber this yeah let's keep going we're almost there I think i saw the cursor you're full of
it I don't think it goes all the way down we're on five of 12 tables okay i think we're going to move back get less controversial as we go so public parks recreation areas playgrounds that's a new ad no that's already one that was
moved over so it'll be accepted and move on yep okay okay office uses yeah that's fine and deleting number four is fine yep that did a bunch of stuff
undo undo yes yeah it's not clicking the right place i see what you're trying to do there there we go that's fine it won't you just accept all of them at once no no it doesn't okay with a table
it's it just keep going i I just want to Sometimes it accepts other things tomorrow five is that just a refined definition i'm fine with that yeah it was just updating it it was well outdated
language yeah we talked about it time and as we discussed I think we had all of we didn't have any different differentiation between these and the definitions here are yeah we're keeping three and striking the
three down so the ones that are in blue I think we were keeping student Well no we just kept the definition we didn't put it in the use t we said we weren't going to put it in the use table yet so we're deleting everything in blue there for now for now
okay yeah that's fine we're just adding that definition that's fine leaves for Here we go okay neighborhood shop we talked about
did we touch brewery or winery do we want to talk about that one scratch that from the residential zone i think like in my mind okay i I know that's going to come up at the meeting we talked about it
yeah and the neighborhood shop we've talked about at length so I think that we're good to carry that through unless there's any further discussion hearing
none let's move on okay no objection to adding gasoline station to the definition for motor vehicle light service it's there anyway it's already included under motor vehicle light service but I
don't whatever car wash too that's fine yeah it's a light service to a car um and then this is an addition to motor vehicle sales and leasing sales of newer used vehicles construction or
chand machinery it's kind of a combination of two that were separated there was like I don't have any objection to that sorry um just follow me do that can you just make sure you change uses to used in the
middle of that this is a typo okay car wash recovered so we can remove it in number seven common driveway it's just a move so it can stay there yep and number nine is fine as well cuz it's
just a Okay next two are easy okay sorry move on it's okay we're getting there this one just goes away that's fine let's delete it we can just
Okay yeah we're good marijuana we just had references yeah that's fine industrial uses regarding number two we already added somewhere else just moved
yeah so this is an edit correct just to say factories instead of manufacturing i would like it was to consolidate two uses okay that's fine that definitely belongs in industrial use
um yeah that no objections to Yeah that's fine self storage do we need a separate line item i I don't I think it needs to be removed and not by right in village commercial i think it should not be
right in commercial either probably it should just be special permit like the warehouses and storage facilities we already we approved uh self storage under that so do we have objections to one side of the fence or the other on
this i think if we were going to be more specific and talk about like smaller storage lockers we should make that but okay Paul felt strongly about this one feeling less strong about it now it's
midnight battle fatigue i think self storage is different from warehousing but from a use perspective is self storage implies a car pulling up and somebody pointing it in yeah but the
traffic usage is different yeah but it's still what's get stored is different the the trips are different but the volumes at any one time are probably similar or less i would think self storage is busier on weekends when people are moving or at
night it's also not an attraction yeah but I go by self storage all the time i never see them busy ever they're not overly busy but it it belongs in the industrial zone or commercial it doesn't really belong on like Main Street yeah that's I
don't I have no objections to including it in warehouse and removing the striketh through removing it as its own thing that's it and when you start putting it in different places then you get into what is it supposed to look
like right before I joined the board there was a the self storage over by uh over by the Glen went in and there were all sorts of issues with that because uh the builder built the wrong plans that was fun
the plan was with like this design that was going to fit but they were budding residential uses and they just didn't build it the way that they approved and then they went um our building messed up easier to ask for forgiveness huh uh it seemed honest
so a wholesale distribution that is just a straight through recommendation is that uh Yeah it was I agree that that's a warehouse it's a distribution center which is Yeah it's covered so and it's the same use same real estate
for a little while but I know that much okay those are just moves yeah we got General infrastructure utility sure we don't have a definition for utility it shouldn't be capitalized we have public utilities okay so your
request is just for lowercase U yeah i don't like it because it's a heading though but I don't want to confuse it is aility yeah but we have a definition for public utility and these aren't them yeah solar is kind
of but yeah I don't have any objections to these follow the objection and we just keep scrolling i just want to get them approved that's fine i asked okay this is an alternate
definition here um sort of just correct more of a combination just up to the highest level for the home home your suggestion is delete three and four and combine everything into two yeah we allow a home
business with two employees by right and for three employees to become a special permit but I just in general I think home businesses should just be allowed they they got to go through other procedures anyways seems odd to deny the business based on
one more employee where they otherwise would be allowed i think the intention wasn't to have that in terms of scale um so I'm inclined to put it back the way it was just so we don't have a fight on our
hands agreed i'm leaning towards not fight on this one okay yeah so let's reject the insertion and then undo the strikethroughs for the other ones laura would that be the way it is yeah it's almost all bite right
anyways so right um so no you're there no so just unstrike through three and four yeah and then everything else is um Yeah
at this point you're just sticking out by stubbornness are No I was wondering if you help chairs away like this we'll we'll do it in the morning thank you Orin good night Orin thanks Orin have a good night you toughed it
out okay that's fine leave it no it's it's there already I think Laura that's supposed to stay there correct yeah three and four would stay oh stay sorry yeah so unstrike
through it excuse me okay that's good keep scrolling keep scrolling are we done close these are too soon that's it
it's only going to take 15 minutes a motion to approve the B language as submitted and discussed seconded any further discussion no hearing none all in favor
please say I i opposed abstensions okay motion to adjurnn seconded all in favor i opposed extensions thank you very much everybody