Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, January 20th meeting of the Norton Planning Board. The public is welcome to participate in person or remotely. We are in person here in the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street in the Crane Room. You may also join online via the
link. In addition, please feel free to email questions to the board ahead of the meeting as listed in the agenda. I will call this meeting to order. We have a full board in person tonight. do not believe we have any planning board business or policies. Brian, you
want to pass down some bills. >> Maybe later. >> They're currently not on my desk area. >> No bills tonight and no minutes. Also, first item on our agenda is special permit SP33
and site plan approval SPR18 for 61 West Main Street. The owner applicant is Kovville Properties. This applicant seeks to approval of a four-story top-of-the-shop building and rebuilding existing food and beverage retail store. This applicant is seeking
a continuence to the February 24th meeting. >> Uh for the record, Jack Jacobe, 144 Bank Street, representing the applicant. We are seeking continuence. I do want to report to you that the Conservation Commission closed their hearing last
week and we expect their decision at their next meeting. Chair would entertain a motion. >> Motion to continue to the February 24th. >> Second. We have a motion and a second by Tim. All in favor? >> I
>> I opposed. Second on our agenda is remand for special permit 30 Z Mansfield Avenue. The owner is Pern Homebuilders LLC. The applicant is Allen Major Associates. The applicant seeks to construct two 36-unit
apartment buildings. This application was remanded to the planning board by the Bristol County Superior Court. Has been continued several times already. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Um Jack Jacobe, 144 Bank Street for the applicant. We have uh
very little to present to you tonight. I just want to update you on a couple of things. Uh, one is that um we need to file with you the ANR plan in order to um combine lots D and E and that plan is
in process and we hope to be able to get that to you for your next meeting. Uh the second thing is that the conservation commission closed their hearing last week. We expect a decision at their next meeting. uh they um asked a number of questions
but um everything indicated that they are still strongly in favor of having the parking in the front and the buildings in the back. Uh and then finally, um we're working on the sewer issues, uh with the commissioners, and
just this afternoon, we were notified of a meeting next week with the town manager, uh Paul, your director, uh and the public works director to start hashing out details. But as you can imagine, um getting
uh two construction level plans and getting the um uh all the details down uh and and especially because the water and sewer commissioners have uh Weston and Samson peer reviewing everything. Um
it will take a little bit of time to get that done. Uh but uh the good news is we do have a a meeting next week to um talk about the issues. So uh we have nothing further to present tonight and we would
like to go over to your next meeting. >> What's that? >> Can I make >> Tim? >> Yeah. And this is more of a comment just to Mr. Jacobe just so you're understanding. Um, even though it's mid January, the board does have the town
does have an election on April the 11th and there may be some turnover on the board. So, you understand that we need >> if you want all the voting members available that you have a timeline. >> Uh, I would expect that as long as we can get that ANR plan filed that we
could close, ask you to close at the next meeting. Um, the worst case scenario would be the second next meeting, but I think that we will we have every intention of closing during February as long as we've answered all your questions.
>> I went through all my notes. I don't have anything outstanding other than the outstanding issues with the sewer. Um, any other members of the board have any other questions we' like to ask, Mr. Jacobe? >> Well, I I've been going through the bylaw intensely lately. I'm I'm and I found something that pertains to this
project, but also two other projects tonight. One of them we just continued. And so in our general requirements uh 175-61 part C, all residential uses that are permitted either by right or by special
permit in a commercial zone must meet all the dimensional requirements of the nearest residential zone as it appears on a zoning map. In cases where more than one residential zone applies, the more stringent regulations regulations shall be adhered to. So I I just does
this match the requirements of the R60 zone that is it's adjacent to >> are you saying by setbacks etc >> setbacks height requirements the frontage is >> uh I certainly can't answer that
standing here but uh our engineer is here and he's making a note and we'll get an answer to that question for you. Okay, >> Steve, what was the >> and just by determination of the board for other residential projects in village commercial um >> or VCC?
>> If I could could you give me that citation so I can write it down? >> Yeah. Uh sorry, it's section 175-61 general requirements and it's part C >> 61 C. And just for a question, you might also want to ask the building commissioner if that is more of a
pre-existing non-conforming housing in commercial and industrial zones. >> Okay. Yeah, we should um >> Yeah, it is probably worth a sidebar, Steve, just to talk about. not necessarily tied to a specific project, but
um Mr. Jacobe said he'd look into it and bring it back for the next meeting. So, our next two meetings, I see, is February 3rd or February 24th. >> Uh we would like to go over to the third. >> I will ask for a public comment since we
do have an open public hearing. If you're all set. Oh, is anybody here in public, either in person or online, wish to speak? If you're on the Zoom app, please raise your virtual hand. If you'd like to hear in person, please step up to the microphone. >> Ellen.
>> Yes. And just state your name and address for the record, please. Thank you. >> Um, my name is Ellen McGrath. 29 Mansfield A and on 140. Um I have a few questions to
both the U planning board and also the developer regarding to the 236 unit apartments. Um uh first of all I'm curious how much of a communication you've had with the Mass Department of Transportation that's to
the developer. I'd like to know um if you've discussed with them about the road plans and um the possibility of having a sewer and how much involvement will the uh state uh department of transportation will be involved. Um and who will be responsible for repairing
the street if we do have a sewer line? But I think I I heard that um you would be uh the developer would arrange that at the um meeting I went to with the water department because I was curious to hear about the sewer. Um my next
concern is the walkability and the safety concern of the sidewalk. It appears to me that the town does not take care of the sidewalk and some parts of the sidewalk is very narrow and um the um telephone poles are situated
right on top of the um the sidewalk too. So it' be very hard to have a vehicle go down the sidewalk. So, um, if anybody wanted to walk up town, it's very difficult, especially today because I drove through 140 going to my house
today and I noticed a lot of the sidewalk is still covered with ice and snow and there's no crosswalk nearby. So, I can envision people crossing from the apartment buildings um near Reservoir Street onto um the the
sidewalk on on the other side. And if you have dogs, I mean, if you're going to have so many people living there, it's going to be dangerous. And I'm also thinking when you have the car sits, the police uh put us um a blockade in front
of reservoir streets. So, uh only town people couldn't go down there. So, there's going to be chaos. I can imagine people driving into the apartment building and and then also, you know, it with the traffic from the concert. So things I kind of envision would happen.
Um but I really think there should be a crosswalk especially near the apartment building if you're going to do that. Um blending in with the community. Um the developer mentioned about there's some bylaw that said something about new structures shall blend with the
community and he said the word blend a shell can be um stretched and uh it it could be uh have exceptions. So I want to know from the planning board is that true? Can you uh change the uh by laws to say oh yeah you can change the
blending to the community. So um okay so the next question nobody's talked about this but how many visitor parking spots are you going to have in the parking lot and are people able to park along Reservoir Street? They cannot park on um
Mansfield A because that's a state highway. Um, but if you have two 36 unit uh apartments, I can imagine they're going to have a lot of friends coming over to visit, especially during concert season. So, that's what I'd like to know from the developer. Um,
recreation and uh livability. Now, are you going to let people have dogs and where are they going to walk? They're going to walk on on the sidewalk across the street. All right. Um,
and what where are the kids going to play? Are they going to play in the conservation area? Um, so I've lived on Mansfield A uh since 1984 and I've seen a lot of changes. I'm okay for um new
things to happen, you know, but I really think there should be a lot of thought in blending in if you're going to do it with a nice sidewalk, some area for the kids to play, you know, it's just I think it's just you're just plopping the
apartments down there and I'm just worried about that. So in summary, the proposed 236 unit apartments on Zur Mansfield raises significant concerns about communication, safety, walkability, community standards,
parking, recreation, and traffic congestion. >> Thank you, Mr. Jacobe. You want to take I have that list. I'm sure you took it, too. Would you like to respond? >> Yeah, there's a few things that we can address. Uh, one is that certainly Mass
DOT has jurisdiction of 140, but the way the state works things is we can't talk to them unless and until we have the permits we need from the town. Uh, it's the way they do things. Um I wish not only for this project but for others
that we could get their impact uh and and input um early but we cannot even file an application with them uh until afterwards but they certainly will have certain things to say because it is
route 140. uh with regard to paving the road. Uh that will also be within their jurisdiction as well as whatever the water and sewer commissioners uh decide. Uh we are planning on going along the side of the road. Whether we have to do
uh curb to curve paving will be we will be told whether we have to do that or not. Uh the sidewalk. We are um proposing to install the sidewalk all the way in front of our property all the way uh just going slightly around the
corner on reservoir. Uh if uh the town wishes a uh crosswalk to be constructed, um we'll certainly cooperate uh with um making sure that the area on the sidewalk where the crosswalk reaches has
the handicap accessibility. we just would need to be told by uh public works or by do if if because it's 140 one or the other would just need to tell us what to do. So I would imagine that at a preconstruction meeting before we installed the sidewalk that that issue
would be resolved. Uh and um we exceed the number of parking spaces required by the bylaw by 11. Um and uh uh in terms of some of the other things
I think they were things that uh were more subjective than objective. Um so I'm not sure what I can say about chaos and recreation and livability, but I do want to point out I think I understood
what the speaker was saying when she talked about blending with the community. And that was the standards that are in the bylaw that one of the members brought up at a previous meeting. And as we pointed out, those
are prefaced by to the extent possible. Uh and um at this point um uh they are guidelines rather than mandatory. Um so
um that's I think that pretty much covers uh the issues that uh that were raised by the speaker. >> Alan, if I could comment to that. >> Steve, go ahead. >> Uh yeah, what he's saying is true and I want to let the room know that the
guidelines that we have for the village commercial, the design guidelines are exactly that. They're not enforcable as it's written right now. They're just how we wish they would do it. And the whole board here that worked on the
zoning bylaw update that went to the last town meeting all agreed that that needed to be changed to mandatory guidelines. The town voted that down and we can't enforce that until that's changed. That was part of the the the update and
we all wanted that change. Uh secondly, the recreation aspect of it. The developer agreed to give somewhere, I think it was around four four and a half acres of of land, that whole corner where it splits reservoir
from 140. He was going to give that to the town to be a town parcel and we would be able to do whatever we wanted with it. Our town manager and conservation for some reason said they don't want it. We don't want to take liability on it or
have maintenance over it. The developer was willing to do that. The administration said no. >> I think Steve I think the question was it's still remaining as open space but the developer would own it and would pay
taxes on I think is the that's what the town manager was trying to define. >> It it will just remain trees but they will own it instead of us having ownership and use how we want it. It's up to them how they decide to use it. We can we can make an access like an
easement on it. I think I don't know how enforceable it is for us. >> They could choose, I think, to keep it private. >> We could. >> So again, part of our bylaw that we can't enforce beyond that even if we want to,
>> but the one thing the town manager did ask and that we agreed to was that we would deed restrict the property so it could not be developed, that it would remain open space forever. And so, um, we were willing, as you said, to to, uh,
to donate it, but the request was that we continue to own it, pay taxes, and be liable for any injuries that occur. But there's certainly space there for, um, residents to, uh, to use. And, um, if I
were the property owner, I'd probably ask to put a few picnic tables or something out there to, you know, make it welcoming. And I can also tell you from speaking with the uh the developer uh that if towns people do park in our
lot and walk out there, we're not taking license plates. >> Thank you. >> Good. Steve, >> I'm all set. Yeah. >> I just have one question. >> Go ahead. Is the town obligated to give them sewer connection since there was 0.19
uh 0.9 from the town uh center? We're not obligated. I don't believe there is no there is no sewer. >> They're putting it in. >> I understand that. But are we obligated to give them access to the sewer? That's my question. >> Access to the road. >> Access to the sewer in the town town
center. I know they're willing to run the line for 0.9 miles, but are we are we required to give them access to the sewer? Because I I looked at the master general laws and I didn't find anything. >> That'd be a question for water and sewer department. I'm not sure.
>> Thank you. >> Any other questions in the room? >> Currently not seeing any hands on Zoom. >> Cheryl, if you wanted to see if anyone on No one with their hand raised online yet. >> Sorry. Uh Cheryl Senior, 169 Reservoir
Street. Um I'm just here to reiterate some of the things that I had mentioned before um and wanted to hear what other people had to say. Remind everyone that um Mass DOT did request Serpentid to do
a study of Route 140 in Norton um Norton Mansfield and Foxboro. They made that request on behalf of state representatives who had come to the department with traffic and safety
pedestrian concerns. That study was published in 2018, I believe, and the recommendation for Route 140 from Smith Street south to the end of Reservoir Street was to limit
curb cuts in this particular segment to make the roadway safer for all users. that it would considerably make it safer and that any curb cuts that do go in
should be as narrow as possible. So, just wanted to get that back out on out there. Um, I am going to assume that the concern, well, I don't want to consume are the concerns of the board or that the concerns that people brought to the board concerning
um, noise, uh, overnight lighting, um, traffic circulation. Have they all been addressed at this point? >> They've been as addressed as the developer can address them. Okay.
>> And they've been as enforced as we can enforce them. >> Okay. So the only thing I'll say is that I still feel that the development a development of this size and this particular parcel um will have significant detrimental
effects to the neighborhood and the environment as it stands. Just wanted to get that up. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else in the room? And I do not
see anybody online. So the chair would detain a motion to continue. >> There's now a hand for iPhone and Zoom. >> If you have your hand raised in the Zoom, if you'd like to unmute and please state your name and address for the
record, please. You're listed as iPhone only on the Zoom. We'll give them a minute. >> It's not the comment. >> Is it here? >> It has to be spoken. It's be into the record. So, we can't accept written
comments >> in the Zoom call. So, we do have questions in the Zoom and as Brian just stated, we are not allowed uh by law to take questions out of the Zoom chat. If you would like to make your question to the board, you'll have
to unmute and state your name and address for the record, please. I think their hand is down. and came down, but they're still showing as muted. >> Yeah, but I think we've talked about water before and
Paul, just to restate, I think Miss Senior also mentioned light comments. Um, our lighting regulations talk about quote unquote dark sky compliant, which means that the light from the property should not extend beyond the property
line. Essentially, >> cannot cannot no uh lighting offsite >> and we did file the uh the lighting plan which shows that we're dark sky compliant and that we don't spill off the site. And just quickly with regard
to the traffic, we presented the professional traffic report. You uh we paid for your peer reviewer who also endorsed our traffic report. And finally, uh the fire department has agreed with the uh circulation of their
equipment through the site and their ability to get in and out. Robin, >> thank you. If there's no other questions, the chair would entertain a motion to continue SP30 for zero minutes. We would have to February 3rd.
>> So moved. >> Seconded. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I opposed. Abstain. >> Thank you. Good night. >> Thank you. Next item on our agenda is definitive
plan three and special permit 36 for zero Pine Street and 0R Pine Street/wheaten Place. The owner applicant is Norton Land Company LLC. This applicant seeks to create 21 residential lots as a residential cluster development.
Good evening. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh my name is Bob Forbes from Zenith Consulting Engineers. Um the engineer who who worked on this project. So what we're proposing is um
this is a this is across the street. You you would you like me to put my plans up or are you guys going to do them on screen? >> Paul's going to bring them up. >> Thank you. >> You want the um cluster development plan? >> Yeah, just right. We'll go right from the uh cover sheet and then we'll just
go right through. >> Okay. >> If you don't mind. >> Of course. >> Perfect. Not sure if my laser will will reach it, but >> yeah, >> always that one, Bob.
>> Yeah, if what would you rather? >> I mean, if it's easier to do either. >> Everybody might be able to see this a little better. That >> Okay. U >> just an idea. >> Thank you. >> Just the people on Zoom won't be able to. So, if we have to describe what you're talking about, we'll have to do that also.
>> Oh, they're not going to be able to see any of this. So, okay. So, uh, >> they'll see what's being shared, but they won't see where your laser's going, obviously. >> Um, so what what we're doing is we're proposing a residential development. Uh, it's actually three it's currently three
parcels of land that we're going to combine. Um, it's on south side of Pine Street. And you this is the this is a project that is proposed being um essentially exactly the same as what was proposed by
the same developer just down the road on Pine Street uh Germaine Way and Lloyd Circle uh which are currently under construction and being developed at the moment. Um, what it is is the existing, if you
don't mind, would you flip to the next sheet? >> Well, thank you. Um, so what this is is here, this uh up the top here, it's just off the sheet now, is uh is Pine Street. This is our parcel uh highlighted with
the gray uh gray line around it. Uh consists of uh 55.66 acres of land. Um there are wetlands throughout these wet these symbols here are wetlands. So there's a wetland system that comes down and then on this
edge of the property is actually a river. Uh some wetlands on this side as well. Um what again what we we're proing proposing to do is a cluster subdivision um wherein we're currently in um R80
zoning. So, it requires the conventional subdivision will require 80,000 square foot lots. Um, and we're proposing to do a cluster subdivision. Again, similar to B for Farm across the street. Uh, that would
allow us to go to 40,000 square foot lots, but the additional land uh will be there requirements for open space that uh that we meet. we actually meet and exceed on this particular layout. So, if
you wouldn't mind going to the next sheet. Uh what the cluster subdivision regulations require. Um I see some familiar faces in the audience and on the board. Uh we it requires us to do a conventional layout. In other words, a
layout where we um divide up the site based on uh a conventional subdivision layout that again in this particular zoning is 80,000 square foot lots. So that's what
this lot layout is. We have a roadway, a U-shaped roadway coming off of Pine Street with a culde-sac. the roadway meets the requirements uh for for roadways in town. Uh and each lot meets
the upland the full lot requirement and the upland requirement for for the lots in the town. What this does is essentially is a yield plan which uh which yields 21 lots under the conventional layout.
Um this particular plan, the conventional plan has a wetlands crossing here, a wetlands crossing here, and another wetlands crossing here. Uh so three wetlands crossings approximately would
be about 15,000 square feet of wetlands impacts. Um if you wouldn't mind going to the next sheet. This is the this is again the uh conventional layout and similar to what
we did on in the Balfur farm subdivision. We show house that you can see how large the lots are and how tiny the houses are in comparison to them. That's that 80,000 square foot lot size
requirement. So these rectangles are houses driveway in front and the very large lots associated with them. Uh we graded out the roadway and we show potential areas for um for storm water
management areas. Um if you wouldn't mind flipping to the next sheet. So this is the cluster um subdivision layout that I spoke of and um what it
again I I had mentioned it it allows us to go down to 40,000 square foot lot sizes and we have an open space associated with that similar to Bloor Farm again. So again we have a road showing road A up here a U-shaped road
and we have two culdeacs coming off that. These culde-sacs meet the town's requirements for maximum length. Um the road A we we've developed exactly as we did on the roadway all of the three roadways on the uh Balffor Farm
subdivision. Um what we have under this proposal is uh again we have open space. So we we're required to have a contiguous open space parcel and that's what we're doing here.
We're trying there's a vernal pool down here. We're trying to stay away from that. There's a natural heritage endangered species line approximately where I'm showing the highlighter here. And um one of the one of the um
standards that you'd like to meet with a cluster development is to be able to um contain the sensitive or or valued uh open areas on the parcel in the open space. So in other words, they don't get
developed. So the open space the contiguous open space requirement uh is met by this parcel down here. Uh there's also a um an upland requirement in the open space and we've met that on this
contiguous parcel but I just want to point out that we're able to have an additional open space knowless we can call a bonus open space parcel here. There are some houses along uh Pine
Street. We wanted to provide open space behind them. And I also want to note that this parcel here, this parcel here, and this all of this area down here is uh is conservation land is I'm not sure the the exact um how it's represented,
but this is open space all throughout here. So, uh open space parcels are contiguous to those other open space parcels. Um, if you would if you wouldn't mind flipping to the next sheet. Uh, next one. This is just a this all
this sheet is is just a it enlarges each lot. So, you could actually read what all the requirements are for the survey of the lots. Uh, next sheet please. Um so just this is um it's hard to see the
whole sheet but so we have this broken down into two uh grading and drainage plans. Um and you can see the wetland systems here that we're trying to avoid as best we can. Um essentially we we end
up with uh a total of 24.87 87 acres of open space, 16.75 contiguous upland open space, and then uh the total uh amount of open space, upland open space is
19.15 acres. Um, so again, we're showing that roadway the you only see a portion of it here because there's a brake line here, but that U-shaped road that meets Pine Street, which is up here, uh, we have our culdeac coming off it. And we
have a wetlands crossing right here. And on that particular one, we're able to uh to cross that and only have 195 square feet of impact of that wetland. Uh, if you wouldn't mind flipping to the
next sheet, Paul. This is the other half of that U-shaped roadway out to Pine Street. And this is the other culde-sac that comes off of that. And we have another wetlands crossing right here. It's a little bit wider. So, we were able to cross that
with only 3,33 um square feet of impact. total impact less than 5,000 which is for permitting purposes. That was uh what we were shooting for to keep it under 5,000. And
um we have got over this in concept with the uh conservation commission agent. He was pleased that we're able to keep it under 5,000 square ft. Um the for the roadway systems for the
semic-ircular roadway I spoke of we we providing a 50ft right ofway and we're providing 26 ft paved width. Again like I mentioned that's similar to the subdivision just on the north side. Uh the two culdeacs each of them are less
than a,000 ft long which is the requirement in town. They have a 40 foot right ofway and 24 foot paved width. Uh the turnarounds at both culde-sacs are exactly the same dimensions um that the
fire chief was happy with uh on the Balfur farm subdivision that and specifically that's 96 ft diameter pavement in 120T uh diameter right ofway. Uh as far as the drainage is concerned,
we have a series of infiltration/detension basins uh very similar to the to the same. We didn't want to stray too far from the from the model that um we had approved on the north side. So they're
very similar. Um the drainage system, the storm water drainage system is very similar to that. We have uh under all design storm events >> h
>> there's actually a bas on the questions after >> yeah you can see here's one here's a big one. So this is the this is one of our drainage infiltration basins. Here's one here. And then on the previous sheet,
there were two uh down on the southernmost side. The the slope of the land goes highest on this side, this side, and this side. It all slopes down along with the wetland. The wetland system slopes this way. So all of the drainage slopes that way. So that's
where we have to go to low spots to collect that uh collect that drainage and and manage it. Um we again similar to the subdivision on the north side we all the ba we were asked to keep all the basins on lots and
not in the open space. So that's what we've done. Uh proposing to have municipal the project served by municipal water and municipal sewer. Uh very similar again to B45.
So, I'd be happy to take any questions, >> comments. >> Mr. Chair, >> go ahead. Bridget, >> do you want to start? Uh, the sewer you just mentioned, is that serviced from the line, the same line that is across the street? >> Yes. Yeah. There. So, there's a force man that uh was there was a stub left
out in Pine Street uh with the understanding that it would be for this uh project if it if it ever >> came down the line. And now, now we're down the line. So, yes. >> So, Bob, first question. In our system,
the fire department hasn't signed off yet. I don't know if you've in communication with them, but we'll have to get them to fully bless everything. >> No problem. I'll contact them. >> Um, also before you stop your presentation, we go to questions. We do have a long list of waiverss that you
are asking for. Um, we can either address all those now, we can go to questions now. But I think there's got to be some good questions on the waiverss if you want to get into those now. >> No, no problem. I'd be happy. I don't have the list of them in front of me, um, Mr. Chairman, but, um, I'd be happy
to address them if you want to go right through the list. It's almost exactly the same list as, uh, Balffor Farm. >> Completely different project. >> Yeah. But we were actually able to remove a couple of them. That's my only point. We don't have as many as we had over there.
>> Okay. Paul's going to pull them up so we're on the same page and then we can go through them one by one. >> You're in zero hand. >> While we're doing that, Mr. Chair, I just want to mention for anybody in the audience, these plans are available if
you want to go to the Norton Planning Board's web page on the Norton website and you can go to there's a big button that says view meetings online and meeting materials. If you click in there, you can go right into a folder where all this lives. So, I think I saw
at least one person taking a shot with their phone or the map. That's uh >> you don't need to do that now. >> Okay. They should all be in there, but they're updated. >> Mr. Chairman, I actually if anybody's having difficulty finding their
requested waiver lists, I have them. I just pulled out my uh it's on the cover sheet of the plans, so I'd be happy to go through them if you'd like. Sure, we can start. >> Paul's almost there. >> I will say before we even start that, um, as far as the engineering goes, the
way a project like this works for the information of the public, um, Bob's the engineer on record here. He draws the plans and as a board, obviously, we're not engineers. We don't have the background to be able to interpret all this. So, the town
picks out a peerreview engineer that the applicant pays for. the peerreview engineer acts on our behalf, goes through all their plans, and then submits a what in this case is a quite a long list of um questions and updates
that need to be done to those plans. Um so that's a back and forth that the applicant's engineer does with the town's engineer throughout the process. And here's the list of waiverss requested. >> Do you want to just go through it
yourself? So now first waiver uh section 4 point from section 4.2 these refer to the um the planning board is uh has the ability to wave um not zoning bylaws or regulations but their uh the subdivision
rules and regulations. So that's where when I state the section that's where that's coming from. So section 4.2 would uh to allow we're asking for a waiver from section 4.2 to to allow scales other than 1 in equals 40 on the plan sheets and I believe we have 1 in equals
50. >> I don't think we have a problem with that. >> Um from section 4.2.4 to allow a scale of uh 1 in equals 500 ft on the locus plan. That's just on the cover sheet just to it showed a little bit better of
the area. So that's why we're asking for that um waiver. um from section 5.3 and 5.6 to allow one 4 foot wide sidewalk. I will stop there just to see if any of
the members of the board have any questions on that. Typically, I believe in the past we've have waved the sidewalk on both sides of the street. >> I think it usually has to do with whether there's sidewalk outside of the project.
So, just to confirm, the proposal is that there would be sidewalk on one side of the street. >> We're asking for one. It's again exactly what we asked for the other time. >> Okay, >> we're all good. We'll move on. >> If you if the board would prefer us not
to have a sidewalk, we can we absolutely can remove it. Um so uh number four from section 5.3 to allow 1 foot wide Cape Cod BMS uh rather than vertical granite. Uh that's something we went over with
the uh DPW and they were uh happy to allow us to do that. I think it makes it easier to uh to for for plowing purposes. The the vertical curb doesn't get banged up and it looks a little more rural like this subdivision is. That's
why we had asked for that. Um number five, section 5.4.C to wave the requirement to provide 50 foot of vertical curve length per degree of grade change. Uh again that's all
that is is an engineering um issue and what that if if you provide that these are these are requirements that are essentially for um like highways. provides it provides it
it flattens out everything and you don't have as uh the nice curves and stuff in the road. Um this is not uh a horizontal curve but it's a vertical curve and uh we want to minimize
um traffic. We want to minimize the speed that the traffic travels on these roads and that helps with that. Um Tim We don't need to if it's not called out specifically at this point,
but if there are specific points on the circulation plan where you can call out here's where it doesn't meet the requirement under 54C >> to understand, okay, this is where it's
maybe a little steep, right? everywhere else is flat or >> we're not Bill, let me just uh be we we do not um have anywhere in in this design where we've exceeded the maximum
slope of the roads. It's where one So in other words, if you have two slopes coming down like this, it's this part and here. and they and the the requirements are for a very long curve which makes people travel faster on that
roadway. It doesn't make it any uh either sight distances aren't changed or the slopes of the roads aren't changed. It's just that transition between an up and a down or a down and an up. >> Okay. >> If if my memory serves, which we'll let this side, I think the exit out of the
previous project did have a bit of a grade that we talked through. So I was making sure that if that was the case again that we made sure we paid attention to >> that. That's a really good memory. I have forgotten that. But we actually redesigned that so we didn't we didn't meet any we didn't exceed any uh slope
coming down the road. Um sorry I lost my place here. Uh number six for section 5.9 to allow open drainage basins. I mean that it essentially the uh requirement is saying
you can't have an infiltration basin or a detention basin and uh we would like to do that. We'd like to comply with storm water management policy. Um from number seven from section 5.1 5.17
to allow a driveway lantern on each lot one foot back from the right-of-way layout uh rather than street lights. Um, self-explanatory. >> Yeah. >> Paul, did we accept that waiver in the previous decision?
>> I'd have I'll have to check. >> I can check for you. Yes. >> Um, >> sounds familiar. So uh they again number eight from section 5.18 to allow a maximum uh two tree plantings
per lot on a in a 10-ft uh wide tree planting easement rather than a tree every 40 ft on each side of the road. Uh existing vegetation to remain where possible. Uh again, um the reason we ask
for this is um sometimes when you have um the trees planted exactly every 40 ft, number one, it doesn't look natural. Uh number two, it um sometimes those trees get planted in the most
advantageous spot for a driveway or um you know, maybe blocking the view of the the person's house. What we'd like to do is we ask for that waiver on every subdivision we do, not just this one. >> Um, and the reason for that is just so
you're not we're not trying to get away from planting the tree the trees for the roadway. We're trying to allow the homeowner andor the developer to choose where they go in front of each house to make it more attractive. May possibly get the input of a landscape architect.
>> Um, >> I think Paul, if you can check that one, too. I think that one we may have denied in the last one. >> If if my memory serves correctly, Tim, that's the only one we didn't approve. >> Give it a shot anyway. Still looks
better. Um, number nine from section 6.6. D to allow HDPE pipe uh with less than 3 ft of cover. So, um, this is again, we went over this with the DPW and they were happy um to allow that. We
discussed uh the the benefits of HDP pipe as opposed to uh concrete um and the DPW director was sold on that. Uh number 10 from section 9.1 to allow the proposed roadways to be accepted as town
ways at the discretion of the DPW. this one. Uh there was a lot of discussion the last time this one um the the requirements for and please correct me if I'm wrong, Paul. Um the requirements
for a cluster subdivision state that the road is to remain in private >> ownership and we don't have a problem with that and we didn't have a problem with that last time. um the DPW. So the town came to us and said, "Is there any
what if we what if you guys build the road and we want to accept it? What do we do?" So that's the only reason that waiver is in there uh to allow the DPW to accept the roadway if they want to at some point in the future. And my
understanding is that as explained to us by the DPW director is the town receives federal funds based on the length of roadway that they have as public roads in town and it could be advantageous. So as far as we're concerned, it's going to
stay private forever. Um if it this just allows the town to take it if they so choose. That's >> um And >> can I can I comment on number 10 there? >> Sure. >> Quick.
>> Um if we are going to leave a waiver open for the town to accept the road, do we want to make sure that the road is built to whatever standard the town would have to have it at? >> That would be my hiccup from >> saying yes to this.
>> If we as a town would be required to have sidewalks on both sides, they need to do sidewalks on both sides. It's a different animal if it's going to be a town road, >> right? So, whatever if that waiver is in there, you need to build it to the DPW standards is in my mind.
>> That's fine. Then we we will withdraw that waiver. I don't think the DPW will be happy with that. But where we will more part of the um the reason please again correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of the cluster development regulations is to
um to to get the uh slightly narrower roads um to to be a to have some to be able to wave some things in order to be able to
get the maximum amount of open space. Now, if you look at these waiverss, there's very few that have to do with roadways in town. Um, so there's we're basically doing that, but um if it's a problem with this board, we'll
absolutely withdraw that waiver. Um, from section 9.7B to wave the requirement of environmental impact statement. Um, we asked for this
the last time we we withdrew it. Um, we went through and did an environmental impact statement. Um, and there were virtually no questions or comments on it. So, we we're not if the
board wants us to withdraw that, we will and we will provide the environmental impact statement again this time. Uh my my only point is that I'm not sure if it was of much use to anybody and it took us about a month and a half to put together. So again, if if you'd like us
to do it, we will. We're not fighting that at all. >> I I would definitely air to the side of requiring that. Um unless we had a fairly strong letter from conservation director or somebody of the same saying there's no reason for it other than
that, I would >> He did not say that. Yeah, I wouldn't put them on. I wouldn't ask him I wouldn't ask him for that. So, we'll we'll we'll work we'll start working on that. We'll keep >> I would absolutely want to keep it site correct and everything. Anyways,
>> there's a lot lot of wetlands there, sir. So, >> understood. It's going to be Yeah, it'll it's going to be very similar to the >> plus a vernal pool. So, >> yeah, the other side had 12 vernal pools. >> Yeah, no problem. We will withdraw that.
>> Thank you. You can you can uh I believe I I don't know do I need to submit a formal request to remove that waiver or should I can I do it here? Just we'll remove that. >> I would um I would just submit an amended document to with the updated
waiver list. >> No problem. >> Or amend it from the plan. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And other than those waiverss, I know we have a fairly big list that I think you just got recently from our peerreview engineer that you're going to have to
take some time to work through. You probably haven't adjusted. Yes, sir. >> Got through it yet. >> Yeah, I got through it today and um there's nothing uh earthshattering, but as you said, it's going to take us a while. Just take some time. He's a very thorough review engineer and that's a
thorough letter. No one's ever said anything different. >> I don't have uh any other questions right now. Actually, the only other question I would have Paul, was there an O andM plan submitted if it was going to be reviewing that >> Pat doing it, too.
>> Alan, I got another one. >> Steve, go ahead, sir. Uh, another thing that we as a board should clarify more and have a sit down maybe about, but uh, number sorry, gerrymandered lots 1756.9.
No pork chop, excessively funnel-shaped or unusually gerrymandered lots shall be allowed if the shape is caused solely by an attempt to meet the lot size requirements of these bylaws by evading the bylaw's intent to regulate building and site density. So my question here,
and I'm not sure if it's violated or not, is on the subdivision plan where he shows how many lots he can fit on that property. There are a whole bunch of lots on the bottom that look very unusually shaped.
They are not exactly rectangular. >> So I I can address that. The town also has a part of the um part of their uh zoning bylaws is a shape factor and that's supposed to be able to handle that. So you don't get crazy shaped lots
like that. These all of these meet that shape factor requirement. That's why you see if you look at those lots um you're talking about the ones that extend down towards the river. >> Yeah. uh they are you you've got like uh
an acre and a half of a rectangle up up in the front of the lots and then you have uh additional land in the back. So um that's that's why those are like that they still meet the shape factor requirements, upland requirement, total
area requirement >> and I believe our peer reviewer does obviously look at that plan also. That's a critical way of getting to the >> I suppose so. But I I have to say like I do think the lot shape factor
>> which is a plot within the lot is different than the lot. And this is calling for gerrymandered lots, not gerrymandered lot shape factor. So whether or not that fits in there, I don't know whether that cancels out the lot itself being gerrymandered.
Does do each one of these lots within the I guess a normal portion contain the full 40,000 or 80,000? Not the not the plot within the lot. I kind of see I mean there >> I see
>> what would what would qualify as a gerrymandered lot >> if not these. >> I always like a flag lot where you have like a little bit of frontage and then it goes back and it holds a whole bunch. So, it's almost like a flag pole and a flag. That's what I view as like a
gerrymandered lot or something like that where the frontage isn't really contiguous with the rest of the lot. >> That's there's probably more examples that you could draw, >> right? But I mean, um, >> again, it might just be me seeing it,
but those lots look >> Yeah. >> quite zigzaggy. I can't imagine living there and trying to enforce a boundary, >> setting up a fence, >> mentioning where somebody's trespassing. Like, that's a lot of squiggly lines to say that that would be an approvable
spot. >> It's also a lot of wetlands that you couldn't touch anyway. So, >> yeah. Okay. >> We can uh >> we can ask Mr. Brennan, make sure he considered that. >> Okay,
>> Paul, could you add that to your list? Thank you. >> Yes, Tim. >> Did you have any more, Steve? >> No, I think that's good for that. >> Um, so Paul, this one may be for you and I apologize in advance. Um,
again, putting my memory to the test for better or for worse. I think in the initial when we worked on the other the previous project there was some discussion about whether the scope of the project would qualify it for like a
higher level of it of review. I think somebody had mentioned like the Army Corps of Engineers but phase one didn't meet it on its own and this phase probably may not meet it on its own. >> I don't know if
splitting the development in two pieces takes away that requirement or not since we only we didn't when we looked at phase one phase two didn't exist >> right >> um so I don't know if that's something that we need to worry about or we don't
>> that that's a question that came up from an abutter and I need to talk with the uh conservation agent about that >> yeah this is >> so so this is not a phase two of the first >> I understand this is a total totally separate lot. They don't even abut each other. So,
>> but we can understand confirm if it doesn't trigger a threshold. >> Yeah. >> Yep. So, >> it's or something else. >> Actually, go. I'm sorry. >> I was going to say the other one's for you, Steve, actually. >> Oh, cool. Okay. >> I think when we looked at this property at some point in the past, you had
mentioned that parts of this lot and the open space, I'll say below it cuz I hate compass directions. I think you got me. >> Were one of the areas that were um potentially allowed for hunting in town. Is that still
>> Okay. Um yeah, you got Well, that wasn't what I was thinking, but yeah, you're in the range there. It is still distant enough from housing to be huntable. That's whatever. Whoever owns it could hunt there. The space could be used for hunting if the HOA allowed it or
whatever. That's that's not my regulation or ours to say anything. Um, what I was going to say is this site where the rivers meet is actually a historical site. Uh, it's where a battle took place between the Wampaogs and the
colonists from Taton at the time. And I don't know if we need to have some review. There's signage out there from the historical society marking the sites. Do we need to have a review of this area for historical means. There's
a bunch of cart old cart paths on this. I don't know if they are just our cart paths, native trails, what they are. >> I can suggest maybe maybe we could I'd be happy to look into that in the environmental impact statement if you'd
like. I'll do the best I can to find out information on that. >> I mean, if you'll find it still if the board knows of any information of how to look into that further too. I know with other projects we did have the historical society weighed in >> um with what they knew. Sometimes they
didn't know everything but >> but we can ask Norton historical society. >> I not the society but the commission the Norton Historical Historic Commission >> three groups with similar names, >> right? >> Yeah. >> I mean it's possible the historical
society has info, but I think our next step would be to ask the historic commission. I appreciate your direction on which historical group that we should ask. And I see Bob Kimble chuckling to himself a little bit in the audience. So >> I'm done.
>> Do we have any for now? >> Any other questions from board members at this time? >> No, not at this time. >> If there's no other questions for board members, I'll open up to the public comment. We'll go back and forth between the Zoom app and in person. If you're on
Zoom, if you could please raise your virtual hand in person, if you'd like to step up to the microphone, please name and address for the record. >> And here's our local historical buff. >> Yeah. Bob Primo 51 Pine Street. Walking
neck is on the other side of the river. It doesn't Its bottom right hand corner, but it's on the other side. It doesn't It's not on the property. It's being developed. It's on private property owned by um Ashra Martin off of Taton Avenue. Number of things, just mostly
comments, but nothing else. Um first of all, the chapter 90 money we get for roads accepting this as a public street doesn't auto automatically make it worthwhile to us. We have a number of private organizations, private condo
developments and and developments in in town that have recently come to the board asking many times to uh consider accepting their streets and we keep saying no and they don't understand it because they're taxpayers. Why can't you take our street? Well, first of all,
they're not designed by by DOT standards. The second part of it is developer has an opportunity to explain this to people when they sell these properties because five years from now we're taking the heat about how we can't
fly straight. So I would disagree that chapter 90 first of all the deal the u DPW has a brand new director we just hired I think he's in his second week. I would encourage the planning board to talk to him about what his concerns are might
might or might not be on this on these side streets because uh he may have a totally different view than the people that work there before. And I would find it hard to believe that we want to accept these streets, you know, because it just doesn't in the long run it doesn't pay us to do that. It's going to
cost us. >> They think he already kind of accepted to withdraw that waiver of request and that might be a mpoint at this point. >> Okay. I live on Pine Street 51. Um, of course, my neighbor back in 1986, I could walk across the street, not have to look, not have to pay attention to
anything in the neighborhood. That's all changed now. Um, with the new neighbors down the street, the one thing I haven't got complaints on, and I'm on the traffic safety committee also, is some of the new tenants down on Pine Street are starting to complain. We don't have
sidewalks. We don't have places for our kids to walk. My kid wants to ride his bike, he can't. I would encourage the planning board in any development of this size to encourage a developer to put sidewalks on the main street. It's nice to have on
the side street, but it would be more important to put them on the main so people are living in these new neighborhoods have an opportunity to use them. Uh, I see quite a few people coming and going down Pine Street and I've already had two complaints to the traffic safety committee about how
narrow the road is and the lack of sidewalks and that kind of stuff. So, just throwing that out. >> I think, not to interrupt you, Bob, I think we could ask for possible sidewalks in front of the project. I'm not sure >> right >> to the extent of >> I know they're going to be dead end and
the traffic safety committee is looking at possibilities of making some some connections down there. We have a couple of problems. We have a a bridge we have to deal with. We've got some opportunities to get some grants. Uh but anything that's already done in advance
would be helpful. And if you think about Pine Street as it is today, understand that some of the neighbors are already there. But these developments are are coming up on both sides of the street. And I don't think it's unrealistic for us to ask for some kind of consideration for sidewalk. That's all I'm saying.
Just because it's not in front of the property they're developing. It has it is connecting to a main street. Environmental impacts are very concerning to me. Uh the Rome for Rivers across the bottom of that map. M >> uh I live on it myself and we have a
well just a little bit further down the street. So I would I would recommend that any environmental studies be done to make sure that the the runoff and all that isn't uh going to have an impact on on the future. Other than that, I mean they have a right to build there. They have every
right to do that. Um but I think as um as we progress in this project and any project in town you just talked about zero Mansfield a um I recently talked to Justin um Cha >> the new DPW director
>> Chica >> Chica the new DPW director I for one don't think that the town should be looking at force sewer lines I think we need to go back take another look at these force lines if the developers putting the money forward to make these
force lines available to the town. I think that we should the town should step up with the developer and say, "Well, in that case, let's do it right. Let's make it so we have a a gravity feed system that everyone can can connect to. Not right away, but in the
future, make sure that that that's a possibility. And we're running into more and more of these. I have a force feed in front of my house. come from Wheaten College, goes back up Plain Street, becomes the gravity feed at the end of it. I can't connect to it. If I wanted
to, I can't connect to it. So, I think we need to start phasing out these force systems as much as we can and try to take advantage of some of these uh gravity feed systems as much as we possibly can in the future. So, but other than that,
I would reach out to the historic society because historic district and the historic historical commission aren't really the commission really isn't in they're not organized. They're not they're not even meeting anymore. But the historical society could give
you some insight on what's going on in that area. But again, the the Indian battle was on the other side of the river. So it doesn't doesn't have any impact on this property. >> Thank you. >> Sure. If anyone in person if you want to
step right up. >> Hi, my name's Debbie D. I lived at 87 Pine Street. I'm that last house before the project. It's going behind me and beside me. And um I don't know that I have a problem with that, but I do want
to just make you guys aware of what we've been living through on Pine Street for the last couple of years. The amount of construction that is happening at the same time on Pine Street is just out of control.
For one thing, um, one thing I really definitely want to have everybody hear is that I went to the, uh, conservation commission about a month ago and they told me that all the work that's been done to look at this was expired and would need to be looked at again before it went to anywhere else. So, I don't
know if that's not true, but I went to the planner board and the conservation trying to get a picture of what all those direct roads were. >> You can direct the comments to us and then we can ask the applicant. Okay, please. >> That's great. Thank you. Um, we are seeing a lot of changes in the
water on Pine Street behind my house where it used to be dry and my kids used to build forts. I can see the tops back there, but now they're underwater. So, that's a big deal for us. That is a change. You know, when we did the first
project and all the houses from the other developer, we were told that there would be no changes. I don't know if anybody here on the planet board drives down Pine Street, but I drive down there to go to the gym in the morning and where the road gets all curvy like this,
the water collects now and it freezes and you have to worry about going out into the other side of the road to get around that ice. That is so dangerous. So, that brings me to the fact that I'm
recently retired and I used to be able to take a walk on my street. I can no longer walk on Pine Street. There are so many dump trucks, construction trucks, shovels, new people. There are so many cars going down there.
I can sometimes look out my window and see the traffic dead stopped in front of my house like I was on 123. So that's the changes that are going on there. I don't know what it's going to do to the tire in the road. I you know I
can tell you that my mailbox is covered in mud all the time from the dump trucks going down the street. So, these are things I think we don't consider when we think the construction starts at 6:00 a.m. the noise and we've lived through blasting. We have houses going in across
the street from me. We have the new road on Germaine. We have the houses at the Belffor Farm and we have the new development on my side of the street. I think we're calling that the south side further down at the Dion. There is so much construction for one street.
Um, I I do hope I don't know if anybody's thought about it. I did hear you say a little bit about it that we don't lose all the trails back there. So many people use the trails in the back of um, right? Is that what the little dotted lines are? Are those the trails?
>> No, the dotted lines are the wetlands. >> Oh, sorry. So there are so many trails back there that are used all the time, not just by hunters, but by residents walking their dogs because we can't walk on the street anymore. We walk back there. You can walk back there and see,
you know, like this the painted tree so that I can find my way back to my house when I'm out there. >> Show us the trails. >> And just one more thing, I want you to all know how devastating is to me. I've been a Norton resident for a long time and done a lot of projects around this
uh town. I just spent $30,000 on a sewer and I came here tonight and heard that my next door neighbor's going to have one. I was told I couldn't have one. We can't have sewers on Pine Street. I thought it was because of the ledge. I don't know if that's a rumor or a truth.
Um but anyway, these are some of the things that us residents on Pine Street will hope you will keep in mind. I don't know if you have the police force to start watching these construction guys go down the road at 60 miles an hour so that I can feel comfortable getting my mail again.
Thanks for listening. >> Thank you Bob. I don't know if there's any comments you'd like to specifically address. I will say in my mind the question had come up before you brought it up of multiple construction projects very
close together and how that would work is a slight concern. Um but they are at much different phases at each other which might help and not exactly sure when this project would get going. How farther along the other project would be I guess would be a consideration but is
there anything you want to address from >> Yeah. I I can quickly address a couple of things. Um so as far as the water goes this uh as I mentioned the Pine Street is the highest point in your property is above all um this project.
It all essentially goes from the top of that page down to the bottom of the page essentially. >> So >> yeah. So you're pumping onto this property, not vice versa. So, I don't think you're going to have to worry
about that. And and like I said, all of our storm water controls are very far away from you. >> Thank you. I don't see anybody in Zoom yet with our hand up. Anybody else in person? Yes,
sir. >> Hi there. Fran Turner, 145 Pine Street. I've got a couple comments about the requested waivers. Uh first one is about number seven uh related to driveway lanterns instead of the street lights. Um I agree with that. I I think that I I
like the idea. I wanted to uh suggest adding as a condition for for that waiver that um that all outdoor lighting be uh downward facing. Um I think that would be I don't know from what you guys have done for the other uh the battle
for section I don't know that you've done that specifically but it seems like the lighting has been low in general. Um and u >> is that the intent? >> You want to just address the comments to us and then we'll ask him anything to >> Sure. Um, so that's that's actually my
uh my my uh comment is that as a condition of that waiver, if we could add that um that lighting be downward facing. Um I think the specific description would be all outdoor lighting to be full cut off fixtures directed light downward to minimize
light pollution and glare. >> Something very similar to that is in our bylaw and the laws that they have to follow for lighting. It's very similar what you're stating. Yes. Okay. Well, that's good. Some of the other houses that some of the other houses, for example, across the street don't seem to
have that. Um, as far as I can tell, some of them do. >> You can't stop people from putting up flood lights, etc. on their house. Um, that is going to happen, I'm sure. >> Well, what if we add that as a condition for the for this waiver? The planning
board be willing to do that? >> I'll think so. It seems pretty Go ahead, Tim. You can phrase it better. >> I can't see. a reason for government to tell me I can't put a motion sensor light in my garage. >> Yeah,
>> that's my blunt view of it. >> Well, this is the the name of this uh is Wheaten Place Residential Cluster, right? If you go walk around Wheaten College, the majority of lighting is downward facing. >> No, we're not saying anything about
downward facing, but like their fixtures are different than like a total prohibition on We want to have a light in the backyard to watch the kids are in front of the garage when somebody pulls up to deliver a package. >> Why not?
>> I wouldn't be willing to tell someone they can't put a flood light on their house for security purposes. I wouldn't want someone telling me that and I wouldn't tell anybody else that. >> Well, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting they'd be downward facing.
>> Again, I agree with the board. I whatever on a on a single family home, whatever kind of lighting somebody wants to put outside, if they want to put Christmas lights or a light shining in their yard for a party that they're having, as long as they're not breaking
any laws, that's not our enforcement. If there's a commercial building going in, we'll protect the residents around it from absurd lighting. But we're just very hesitant to put any restrictions on single family homes. I'm not going to tell you what to do on your home or their home.
for the same reason. >> What about putting some that type of description as a as a condition of this particular requested waiver for the construction phase? >> I again then it it also comes
>> construction fa for the construction phase. Sure. I mean that's >> we shouldn't have light spilling off the property a whole lot during the construction phase and they're probably shut down at night anyway other than security lighting maybe. >> No, sorry. I mean, as far as but as far as the lights that are actually
>> installed on the on the buildings, >> well, their houses >> on the houses. >> So, >> and and the and the two and the light, for example, that's at the end of the driveway. >> There isn't there isn't going to be any street lighting. We'd be able to regulate that, but not each houses.
>> That's what I think. This is just about the street lights. So, >> that's what I'm wondering. >> Downward facing lanterns at the end of the driveway. No problem at all. Yeah, >> that's what the waiver is for. >> Well, actually, >> you know, are you talking like wall sconces on the houses? >> Yes,
>> but we can't. >> I don't think we could reg our jurisdiction. >> That's not up to us. >> This is the So, what is your jurisdiction? >> Well, that would that would be covered by the National Electric Code, I believe. Type of lighting. It has to be
>> I think so. I think that I think lighting is is uh very specifically it sounds like it would be within the jurisdiction of this group. It's very different going from residential to commercial. Commercial, it's within our purview. Residential, >> single, >> three years after the fact, a guy puts a
light up on his house that, >> you know, shines outward. What is the recourse at that point? >> Well, that's true, but what about during the construction phase, the construction lights being installed? >> You're right. Somebody comes along and they put a different light on their
house after they build it. There's not much perhaps I can do about that. But >> we we have light lighting standards for certain types of buildings, but then we have a whole separate code that deals with what construction hap like what happens during construction. >> Can I share Paul? I'll just share the
screen here real quick. >> Um so our bylaws actually specifically exempt some single family lighting from our lighting bylaws. So this is our lighting bylaw.
The bylaw shall apply to construction of our drawing except for lighting which is accessory use to one and two family residential dwellings. So our bylaw basically specifically says this is your lighting bylaw but this is exempt.
So it's outside of our jurisdiction. >> Okay. >> There was a proposal I think a couple years ago somebody brought to us to change that bylaw. Um, but it wasn't a workable solution cuz they they had an issue with their how their neighbor installed their lights. Um, but it
wasn't a workable option at that time. So, this is the bylaw right now. >> Okay. And because this is a requested waiver, you couldn't put that in as a condition in this case. >> But this waiver is just from going from street lights to these lanterns. That's all the waiver is to do with.
>> If we don't grant the waiver, he has to do street lights. What what he's asking for is less light than what would have been. He's not going to put giant street lights. He's going to just put nice downward facing lights. >> Yeah. No, I understand. >> Our bylaw specifically prevents us from
regulating any lights on the on the house. >> We separate from this waiver and we can't change that. >> Nor would I personally want to. Yeah. H >> I see. Okay. >> For single family houses, I don't want to impose that kind of regulation. Well,
the the intent, just so you know, is to reduce uh light pollution, uh which, you know, from what I've seen, there hasn't been a lot. You know, they they've actually, I think, done a good job of reducing that, minimizing that on the Balffor Farm project. However, some
other light, you know, as I've been living in town for 20 years, and I've seen slowly the light um you know, from the sky u uh you know, sort of light up the environment around our road and I personally I prefer to keep it dark more
of a dark sky. Some of one of the person be u before this was talking about that. It sounds like lighting actually met the requirements for dark sky projects and >> that was a commercial project. It's a commercial project that wouldn't apply here. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Well, um uh the other next thing I had was uh requested waiver number eight. Um that was more related to trees. I don't really have any concerns about where you put the trees. Um that I think they did
a good job on the Belffor project. Um, the section I that I thought was uh good and I wanted to support was existing vegetation to remain where possible. Um, I like that idea. I mean, that's in keeping with the the kind of the nature
of Pine Street. Um, just a wherever you can do that, that's great. I think I would suggest that there's not there's nothing there's not a specific request there. Just an encouragement in that regard. Um, two other quick things that came up. Um, uh, sidewalks were
mentioned on on Pine. Um, nice idea, but frankly, I think Pine Street is, uh, it's a narrow winding road. I think that would make significant I know that's not part of what you're requesting. So, this is a little I just wanted to address that. Um, I think that would be a big change
to the road and um, I would be against the the idea of adding pine sidewalks to Pine Street. Um, and third, this is just a comment or fourth, I should say, uh, comment to what, uh, I think Debbie mentioned, um, there have been a lot of speeding trucks on the road. There's a
lot of not speeding trucks on the road. Um, not complaining to the planning board, but the opportunity to let you guys know, maybe keep an eye on some of your subcontractors, just to just an FYI, we see a lot of people obeying the law. We see a lot of people that don't.
So, just just a heads up. Thank you. That's it. >> Thank you. >> There are some hands in Zoom now, Ellen. >> Quite a few. >> I don't know who raised your hand first, but we'll go to Sharon's iPad. If you please state your name and address for the
record, please. >> Hi, my name is Sharon Donovan, and my address is 70 79 Pine Street. Um, I just wanted to point out that the um I believe this lot was maybe before the conservation committee at one point
>> and there was some sort of an environmental impact study and I believe it was um within the map zone for endangered species. So, I just want to bring that up because that's from quite a few years ago. I also want to point out the fact
that when I've had issues with the trucks going very fast up and down the street and I've reached out to the um planning board to find out what we could do, what is the oversight on that. I was told that we should call the Norton police. So now we're left to call the Norton police every time we have an
issue with and I counted one day there was a hundred trucks, construction trucks going up and down the street. So and that's just with this one project. Well, I think three projects now that are going on. >> Thank you. Yes, we we have nothing we
can do about enforcing any sort of traffic on a daily basis. That is what the police department's job would be. If there's any problems, that's who should be notified. The >> approving over 100 homes to be built on a street is that is part of your job.
>> Correct. But not traffic enforcement on a daily basis. So there will be no trucks then to build these homes. >> That's not what I said. I said enforcing traffic laws is not up to the planning board. >> But you have to consider the traffic that's already there and that should be part of this.
>> Correct. Traffic studies are part of our scope. >> And there are construction regulations. We do set directions for when vehicles can go leave work when what direction they can leave. We try. >> And the hours of operation because
that's been at six o'clock in the morning. What's >> next? >> 6 seems early. I don't know exactly our hours of operation. Um, this project, we haven't discussed hours of operation and construction hours yet. Generally, they do not start till 7.
>> All right. I I can I know another speaker spoke about that. So, I will bring this up to the building commissioner because they should not be starting at 6:00 a.m. >> Correct. I could I could imagine a lot of crew arriving before start time, though. >> Yeah. At 4:30 in the morning.
>> I used to I used to start work at 4:30 in the morning. >> I thought there was a town rule to not start before 7 and not before 9 on weekends. >> We had specific conditions in the decision, >> right? >> We even got into I want to say backup alarms on the trucks into the conditions. So all we can do is put in
our hours of operations into our decisions and the enforcement of that is in the building department. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And if you could just lower your hand, I'd appreciate it. If there's >> Sure. Come on up.
>> Good evening, Alan Dunis. Um, you mentioned earlier about the construction schedule and what I just wanted to give you a quick update of what's going on with the with the work that's presently approved. So, Lloyd Circle right now, I believe there's there's three more lots
that are available for sale and then the that'll be winding down probably within the next 6 months and Germaine Way will be starting to ramp up. So it won't be like double trouble once we start your main way because Lloyd Circle is it's on
it's on the end not the beginning and uh I just wanted to give you that update and I you know pending whenever we get this one approved I don't it probably would be Germaine way would be winding down when this one would be starting up you know given the fact that we could get it get
the approvals that we need. Um, as far as I know I know my people, my trucks at 7 a.m. before we start. Unfortunately, you know, we're not building the houses. I can't control lumber deliveries, uh,
sheetrock deliveries, rubbish trucks. I, you know, that again, that's an enforcement thing that unfortunately has to be done by either through the building inspector or the police department. Um, as far as same thing goes with speeding. Um, if if my trucks are >> You can control what time subcontractors
show up. >> You can't. No, you can't. And And >> you can. Sure you can. >> Yeah. >> I've been yelled at plenty of times to be in somewhere too early. Yeah. >> If you're violating a start time and making noise too early, >> they can be fined. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> Yeah. But they got to be fined by by I can't find it.
>> I don't I don't own the property. >> I don't like how you're phrasing it that you have no control over it. You absolutely have control over it. the builder or the licensed contractor on site, they absolutely have control over it. >> Okay. >> Um it sounds like it's something we have to bring up with the building department and we will.
>> No, and that's that's the best way to address it. But again, >> it's all the enforcement on the building inspector. >> But but I'm just telling you that you know the construction that we're doing during during our you know what whatever we can control, we are controlling it. I agree with you. But I can't control a
carpenter working for somebody that is building on a house lot that I don't no longer own. That's all I'm saying to you. I mean, >> I think the the permit goes with the lot. Correct. So, as far as I'm concerned, they're restricted under
the special permit that you have to abide by. So, I believe yes, you do have somebody has to be enforcing that. If they're starting at 4:30 in the morning, that's unacceptable. If they got the presses firing off at 6:00 a.m., that's unacceptable. >> Yeah. I'm not I'm not familiar with that happening. >> It might not be a problem. Two people
have brought it up so far. >> Okay. >> So, if one person said it, I might not have >> given it another thought. Two people have said it already. So, maybe there's something there. Maybe we have to look into it. >> That's fine. If it's happening, by all means. Okay. Thank you. >> Some of the machine work also.
>> You've been yelled at. I can't believe it. Never. I I can't accept yelling from the if you want to come up after >> all the comments have to be on the microphone. >> If it's not from Balffor uh do we have any hourly
uh say for say one of our ANR projects, Paul? Um, well, that would be up to the building commissioner, but again, typically 7 a.m. is the earliest start time. And then typically it's sunset or later in the, you know, might be 7:00
in the summertime to when construction needs to stop. So, we'll just we'll check with them. >> I just want to say that your name and address again, please. >> Debbie D, 87 Pine Street. the dump trucks that were here and are coming at
6:00 a.m. and they're coming to the project on the north side that has nothing to do with Lloyd Circle. So, just want to put that out there. >> Thank you. >> Bob B, if you want to unmute and please state your name and address for the
record, please. Uh, >> hi, this is uh Bob Butler, 133 Pine Street. Thank you. >> Yeah. Uh so, uh I have a few concerns, questions. Um the first thing I I do
think that the uh I don't I don't think it's really a bearing on this on the project's plan. But the I do think that the King Phillips war battle, it says it was at the confluence of the Waiting and
Rumpford Rivers. And um that's actually like at the bottom of like the one of the parcels in this project. So I do think it's part of it. Um, but you know, I I don't you
know, I don't see any lots being planned near that area, but just wanted to say that I don't want to get into big historical debate, but um but uh so my questions are um the
first one, can you bring up the Buster plan map? is working to do so now. >> Okay, thank you. >> Um, this is more curiosity. Um, lot uh
to zoom in a little bit. Uh, let me see. Lot two, I think it is. Um, or actually lot one. Uh, so do we really need the road, road A, to circle back to the
right of lot one back to Pine Street? Is there like a specific reason for that? Um, it just seems like it, you know, you can just have the road A kind of come in on the left side of lot two and I don't
see the need for that other road out to Pine Street. um just seems like there'd be less impact on Pine Street if we just had the one road, but I mean it it doesn't really make a huge difference. But just kind of out of curiosity to why that road is
needed. Um the other thing uh couple other things um is I think we had uh LEC environmental consultants uh for projects on the other side of the road
uh Lloyd Circle and Germaine Way. uh didn't know if that was something I think maybe the conservation commission had hired them, but uh didn't know if that was something we would use for this project to have some more environmental help.
Um, another another question I had uh was about the um the cart paths and all the wetlands and um forest and the river everything else and that you know the
cart paths go through. Uh concern about um dirt bikes and ATVs once construction begins on the road or the roads. um there's going to be a lot of access for, you know, ATVs and dirt bikes to get out
and go through those new new roads and out into the trails. Um I think that's a concern like just ripping up the trails and you know, uh impacting, you know, the wildlife out there and everything else. I didn't know if there was
something that could be done. Um maybe like where there's um entrances to those cart paths where the construction's gone through. Uh maybe some like large boulders or large logs or something to be placed during the construction phase.
Um, and then at the end of the construction, uh, I think at the end of one of the roads, uh, road C, uh, looks like there's an opening out to the open space. And I was wondering if like maybe a gate or something should be put there
so no vehicles can get out that that way. Um, so that was another concern I had. Um, and then, um, so I think Al had kind of mentioned, you know, I think Lloyd's circle was is, you know, almost complete
as far as the houses being built and then Germaine Way will get underway. Um, I was hoping like I know, you know, these would take a while to be built, these roads. Um, I'm hoping Germaine Way would have to be,
you know, pretty much fully built as far as the houses go, um, before any new houses could be built, um, on these lots here. So, I want to see if that was, um, the plan going going forward with that.
I >> think that's everything. >> Thank you. I'll ask the applicant to uh, respond. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so LEC Environmental is involved. Um, Mr. Andrew has hired them um the last time
and he's hired them again this time. They're they're going to be the ones who are um deal they they'll actually be doing the environmental impact statement. Um and they did the ones dealing with the conservation commission because um they are very good. I agree.
Uh roadway layout. The reason why we have that U-shaped road going out to Pine Street is um number if if we didn't, it would be 21 lots on a on a culde-sac essentially. Um we could remove it. I don't know if the fire
chief would be thrilled about that, but we could absolutely look into that. It it it isn't necessary as far as um uh access to the site. You're you're right about that. Um the also I mentioned the uh we would
have to we would have need additional waiverss for length of the culdeacs. Um we don't need that now. And the gate to the access to the open space is absolutely at the planning board's discretion. If you guys would like us to do that, we do it. I figured people
would want to we we have to provide access to the open space and that's where we chose to do it. Uh but if the plane wants a gate there, we'll put a gate there. Not a problem. >> Thank you,
sir. Go ahead, >> Andrew H. >> If you're on the Zoom app, if you could please >> go to the react option and put your hand up rather than uh just turn off the mic.
>> I think they're good now. Sorry, sir. Go ahead. >> That's all right. Andrew D, 87 Pine Street. I know that my wife and a couple of other people have brought up the the water and that it's all sloping down from where I am, but I'm afraid that
these houses that are around there are all going to have to be lifted up a little bit. If they're lower than I am, I don't know how they're going to keep water out of their basement, quite frankly, which means they may have to be lifted up. What happens to all that runoff? Are they going to be able to control all of that water and keep it
out from my yard or back there where when it rained heavily last year it was flooded. I've never seen water back there and it was across there and all flooded through those wetlands that don't really show but we were flooded
out from all of that from that the one that runs along the corner there. So, what how do they control that water from flooding everybody out? >> So, you want me to give my uh storm water regulation explanation again?
>> Uh, we can or we can let Bob explain it after. Get if you want to ask all your questions and then >> No, that's really all I'm very concerned about that the use where the water's going to go. >> We'll have the engineer answer. The short answer is they're not adding water. They're help maintaining it more, but he'll answer the his engineering. >> Thank you.
And we're going to cut off Tim's stol by bylaw die tribe for now. >> I'd rather have I'd rather have Tim explain it to be honest with you. So um what happens is when you do a storm water design is you do you you make a computer model of the existing condition
which essentially now is woods. We have woods. So you have very little runoff from woods in general. Then you do a model of the postdevelopment and that includes everything that you've
got. You've got some remaining woods because you're not taking down all the woods. You've got lawn, you've got driveways, you've got sidewalks, you've got uh paved roads, uh roof runoff, and you what our requirement and that's
what um Mr. Brennan who the is working for the town is reviewing what we've done. We've already submitted a storm water management plan um and he's reviewing that reviewed it uh and has comments on it. Um but um
what we do is we collect all of that water and these storm water basins that we were discussing earlier and what it does is it collects that water infiltrates the majority of it into the ground and then meters it out slowly. So
you have these big huge collection uh ponds with little uh either infiltration and in this case infiltration and up higher uh small outlet pipe. So it it meters the water out and what we what
our requirement is is that we have to show that in postdevelopment we have a lower runoff rate than in pre-development. And that's what we've done and that's what Mr. Brennan is reviewing now about that to make sure
that we've done it correctly. >> Tim, his explanation is better than yours. Thank you. >> There. That's why I'm not an engineer. >> We have two in the Zoom now. Yeah. >> Oggov, if you could please unmute and state your name and address for the
record, please. >> Hi there. Uh Bailey and Andrew Oglev. Our address is 116 Pine Street. Uh I have a few questions and my husband has a couple questions. Um we have been here for a little over two years and we can
definitely uh connect to the concerns about the increase of uh of construction. Um it's been ongoing since we moved in. Um I had a question about road A. Uh sort of coming off of Bob B's um comments. I I'm confused why there's
two entrances. We literally live right across the street from the entrance on the right of the curve on road A. Um, is there any plan to help manage, you know, uh, car lights when coming in and coming
out? Is there a grade? Is there a turn? Is there something cuz they're going to be coming right into mine and and and our neighbors houses. Um, that's a huge concern for us. And if it's not needed to have two entrances, which uh I don't know, seems excessive. I I think that
one is is fine. Um but that's one of my main concerns in terms of um coming in and coming out. They're coming right into our driveway. Uh I'm also concerned about people using our driveway as a turnaround. >> If you want to just list all your questions and then we'll have the
applicant respond when you're done. >> Uh yes, my name is Andrew Oglev. uh 116 Pine Street here. I I just had a I guess question or clarifying question on section 5.4C. Um I think with respect to
uh I think maybe the providing 50 ft of vertical curve length just so I'm understanding this correctly is the request to wave the typical amount of
frontage or you know angle to avoid or increase water runoff. I guess where I'm going with this question or clarifying question is this area of Pine Street already has really bad storm water management issues. There's ponding all
over the street. It's been echoed by a couple people on this call. Uh just curious if the waiver uh and granting this waiver will increase storm water issue uh storm water issues that are already present on Pine Street.
Are >> those your only two questions? Yes. >> I'll have the applicant respond to you. >> So, the the storm water question is simple. Um the the the none of our roads
drain into Pine Street. They drain the opposite direction. They drain into this property. Um that waiver has nothing to do with storm water. It literally has to do with the geometry of the roadways. Um, and
of the what else did we have? The second entrance. Again, I I I mean, I can ask I'm not sure the planning board would want us to remove that second entrance, but um I can if the planning board does
want us to look into that, I can um talk to the traffic engineer, see if there's any negative impacts from that. I mean it we need a waiver for it looks like about two thou about a 3,000 foot long culde-sac at that point.
>> Are you also looping the sewer line on that? >> What's that? >> Are you looping a sewer line or water line on that too? >> The water line will l Yes. The water line's going to loop. >> But on that is that what the loop would do? Probably >> the the loop is going to help with the
water loop. But we can we can put the water line under the ground without a roadway there. You know what I'm saying? >> Okay. You're not because the road doesn't exist. You're not tied to it. Never mind. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> We can talk out of board about if we want to talk about
>> getting rid of a entrance and exit. My gut feeling right off the bat not seeing where driveways or anything line up. Maybe there's a chance, Bob, you could show or we could get a plan showing how the driveway does line up with the neighbors. Maybe
there's a way that we can make it not line up perfectly. But I do see how two exits and entries could be advantageous. Um, especially with that little bend in the road there. You can pick which way you want to go in and out and it kind of will prevent less queuing,
excuse me, uh, while pulling out if that ever became a problem. Um, but as a board we can uh think about that and get back to the applicant. >> Uh, can I ask one more question? I'm sorry. This is 116 Pine. >> Yes. We're going to have a plan. We will
show the roadway and how it lines up with the driveways and the houses across the street. And if there's any opportunity to improve the way it's laid out now, we will try to. Am I able to ask one more clarifying question? I'm sorry. This is 169.
>> Thank you. Um, so just so I'm understanding correctly, is the plan so far as it is now that there'll be little to no fill added to this site because I believe the properties, the three or four that were built right across the
street required 7 or 8 ft of fill in some places to raise the lots. And I'm curious, you know, with that, there's absolutely water runoff and I think that's a lot of the collective concern of what this development might might
cause and that there is water runoff coming from the site onto Pine. Um again the um the storm water management plan that we've submitted and is being reviewed clearly shows grading on proposed grading on every lot, every
road, every storm water control and we look at the pathways in which the water goes. And now that now some of those lots do require some fill. And the reason for that is because
um we have to make everything work and we have to have driveways sloping down into the roadways. The our roadways, not pine. No, none of the driveways in this development are going out onto pine. But we at one of the requirements we have is to control
um the quality of the runoff that comes off of the driveways. In order to do that, we have to pitch it down into the roadway and gets collect in the road. It gets collected in the roadway storm water management controls. Um none of
the grading the proposed grading on this site makes anything from this site slope into Pine Street. Can I add? >> Sure, Tim. And >> I think um if anybody wants to look at the peer reviewers report should be
available in the Dropbox. Correct, Paul? One of the requests or recommendations from the peer reviewer working for the town is that the applicant provide a fill analysis or a cut and fill analysis. >> So again, that's that's that is
accurate. And um the reason he's asking for that is to determine how many trucks are going to have to bring Phil onto the site. But um Mr. Andrunis will likely be building the roadways and the infrastructure for this project. And I
assure you, he's going to want to try to uh balance the site as best he can and bring as little on or as little off as possible. >> I got I got a question. I know we had one more on Zoom, but they don't have their hand up anymore. >> I think they uh they're gone. I don't
see any more on Zoom with a hand raised. If sir, if you'd like to step up and just name and address of the record, please. Thank you. Thanks, Pat Daly, 149 Pine Street. Um, I know that they issued a ORAD back 12,
2021 with conservation. Um, I'm assuming that's what was used for these plans. >> Mhm. >> Um, but I believe it's a three-year duration. >> Yes. >> So, is that going to have to be reissued again and then re new plans submitted?
>> Once a project's uh applied for that ORAD line will be locked in. Okay. My understanding is you haven't received your approval from from conservation. So, >> haven't even submitted >> haven't even submitted. So, the ORAD,
all of that will have to be updated. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But that a lot of those were used to develop these plans. Correct. >> That would really be chair. That would ask all questions and I'll let Bob come up. And then the only other question I
had um you know this is close this is you know in a zone 2 area. It's upstream from the interimm wellhead protection area. Um as far as heating for these structures. Just wanted to confirm that there's going to be no underground
storage tanks for oil or anything else. That's it. Thanks. Okay. So, as far as the ORAD uh expiring, it has not expired. It's um it would and I I will check with um LEC
Environmental about this, but they are they have um verified to me that the ORAD is not expired, and we can check with Mr. Thomas from the Concom as well. Um there are some things that um the state government
um due to uh the pandemic and other economic issues has given blanket approval to extend the um certain permits depending on when they were issued and whatnot. And I
believe that this one fell into that. But again, I don't know that for a fact and I will check with Claire Hogaboom from from LEC environmental on that. But >> but that ORAD would be >> I'm certain the ORAD is still there. >> That would be locked as soon as you apply to conservation that puts a freeze on
>> as soon Yeah. If they issue an order of conditions for the work here that gives us another three years on the line anyway. So, >> and they had raised a question about >> are there regulations about storage
tanks in a zone 2 that we I don't think we've I know we talked about it when we were talking about gas stations, but I forget if there are specific regulations for a zone 2 for residential. So the heat is uh primary is electric and uh the only underground uh tanks are for
propane which is for cooking stove and fireplaces. But there's no there's no oil or there hasn't been on any of them. I it's highly unlikely there'll be any oil tanks above or underground. That's not happening. Okay.
>> Steve, did you have a question? >> Yeah, another couple comments. Um, one, uh, in the original subdivision plan that like you have to count the density. Uh, as we discussed with the project the other day, all subdivisions have to have
an open space area, not just cluster developments, but the subdivision has to have a an open space area. That's not accounted for in the first plan. So the comment is that the
the capacity plan, I forget what the name for it is, doesn't show >> doesn't show what would >> doesn't show an open space that would be required under the subdivision law >> technically. Yes. Um secondly, uh in order to achieve the density that
they're saying, the number of houses, they require the dead end street, which they need a waiver for. Does that count as the maximum density they could achieve? >> I think we're under the waiver length for dead end streets.
>> All dead end streets need a waiver. They just can't be more than a thousand, >> right? all dead ends >> can't exceed uh 13 units >> or exceed 13 units. Yeah, >> they can't exceed 13 and they can't be more than a thousand. All of them need a
waiver. So unless if we didn't grant that waiver, they would not be able to put that dead end there and the density would be different. So does that count? Like just to you know have that discussion. Uh and then
to go on one more with the open space on the cluster development plan, you have the smaller open space area on the side that needs to have access for vehicles. Also says all open space areas need to have dry access for emergency and maintenance
vehicles. >> Whether it's an easement or something. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Their alternative would just be to tie it into What is that? Lots eight and nine.
>> Correct. And just take it away from the open space. >> Yeah, >> we can put that question on Brennan's list. Paul, add it to Mr. Brennan's comments, please. >> I don't see anybody on Zoom with the
raised hand. Anybody else in person? Mr. Kimell? number 51 Pine Street. Just for clarification, and I' I've been out of it for a while, so I'm not quite clear what's going on with this, but when you build apartment buildings, a percentage of that goes to affordable housing. When you build a when you years ago, we used
to build a project like this, when it turned a certain number would trigger, you know, having to have affordable housing. And I don't know where that is anymore, but I haven't been paying attention, but I'm just curious, maybe someone can answer that question. Is there any affordable housing in this one
or any of the other buildings that are going down there now as far as >> Oh, that one's for you. That's an easy one. >> Yeah, they actually do trigger uh affordable housing because they're over six lots. So 10% of these three units and what the applicant has said is uh
rather than construct them they would like to pay the uh payment in lie of 200,000 per lot or 600,000 that's what I recall I guess my concern is you know we are on the cross as you
all know we're roughering 10.1% right now on affordable housing. And every time we build units like this, you know, we're we're triggering the very very good possibility of going backwards. And then we've got a a pro developer coming
in with 72 units of affordable housing. We have no control over whatsoever because the state mandates it on the comprehensive permitting process. So, I would encourage the board any time that we don't do this. It's generous that they're giving us $2,000, you know, per
unit. I I agree with that. That's >> 200,000. >> 200,000. That's uh that's a lot of cash and I I appreciate that. But that 200,000 could trigger on the affordable side a lot more cost to the town because of it. So, I know the apartments work
differently than the than the housing. I was just curious about this. So, did this happen on the other developments still on Pine Street? Did they pay the 200,000 or did they >> they they they did not pay I don't know that >> could I address something about this that I think is incorrect.
>> I think we talked about this last year at some point and during the zoning bylaw update where we can't enforce >> that's for these project in the zoning recode discussion that we yeah >> the enforcement of this is against mass
law. >> Yeah. It's um >> the affordable housing on these kinds of projects. >> Yeah, that's that's not the >> that's a whole that's a separate discussion. >> Our our bylaw is incorrectly applying that now. Okay. Yes. I think >> to Mr. Kimmel's point, I don't think we
have the I think the applicant has the ability to choose, >> right? >> I don't think we have the Yes. >> I don't think we have the ability to tell them we don't want the payment that we want the affordable. I don't think that's something that we can do. >> Is that something else that we >> No, no. We >> we there's a choice for the apartments,
but in this kind of a project >> Oh, I know. Yeah, >> it just doesn't apply. >> Well, >> it used to. >> Yeah, we can. >> It's according to our bylaw, but not according to mass law. So, are we violating mass law by trying to apply this? >> Are we going to get sued for several
hundred,000 for each apartment back? >> That is a question. Yes. >> Okay. We need to be very careful here. >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised in the Zoom and I don't see anybody else in person. Um Bob, if you'd like to step up
to the microphone for a little scheduling talk. We have two meetings scheduled in February, two in March, one in April, and we have uh town election after our April meeting in which there's several seats up. So, we have to
button this up fairly quickly, if you know what I'm saying. >> I understand. Um, I if you don't mind, it's unlikely that I'm going to be able to respond to Pat and get a response back from Pat Brennan uh in two weeks time.
>> Now, you probably need March 17th at the earliest as well. >> I was I would say even either well, even the later one in February might be able to work. um >> put you on for February 24th. If we can't get it done in time, we'll continue. >> Please, I'll continue if I if we can't
get it done. I'm assuming you'd like me to have a response from Pat at that time. >> Other than that, that's the biggest thing we're waiting for other than the few little things that we talked about tonight. That is the probably the biggest item outstanding. >> Okay. Yeah, it makes sense. There'll be more to talk about. Um otherwise, there
won't be a lot to talk about. So that's if you don't mind the late February meeting and I'll continue if need be. >> So that would be chair would entertain a motion to continue definitive plan three and special permit 36 for zero Pine
Street to February 24th. >> So moved. >> Seconded. >> We have a motion by Bridget, second by Steve. All in favor? I >> opposed. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks Alan.
excited. >> Last item on our agenda for tonight, site plan modification, SPR19 for 108 West Main Street. The owner applicant is Medical Realy Trust. The applicant seeks to remove an existing office building and build a three-story top of the shop
building with five residential units. Good evening. >> Good evening, members of the board. I'm Sam Wak on behalf of Sher Corp. Um, basically we're going to be doing the work for Medical Realy. Um, the uh description was a little um deceiving.
We're not demolishing the existing building. We're going to just retrofit it and we're going to go up. The existing building has housed um a renter for about 25 years. they had moved out and subsequently with the uh this new top of the shop, we're just trying to
see if it's buy right and and kind of uh just do what we can. So, this is going to be a site plan approval. We're not there's no special permits leaked to this. So, >> yes, sir. >> It's a different animal than approving
special permits. We're strictly looking at the site. If there's nothing else, I'll have members of the board ask you any questions. If there's nothing, >> please do. >> Steve, yeah, I mean, I'll start off with the same thing. Um, there has been delay
uh debate recently about how we can use top of the shop, whether it covers the uses within it or not. We got uh word from council that we can use it as a byright use meaning in a way anything
can go there. That's what town council said. That's what the building inspector said. It's up to us to determine and part of the board believes that that's how it can be applied where you're located. Multif family is
allowed generally by special permit. Uh, I would personally want to see a special permit pulled for the multif family aspect. Most of the board I don't think feels that way. Uh, but you're you're only asking for five units. It's
retrofitting a building that already exists and the height falls within even the residential range. So, I I really don't see much of an issue with this overall. Uh, I have my anomaly there.
I'll address that for one second. I I agree on your call it anomaly. It's definitely something we had addressed and fixed in the BAR update. Um it's definitely I think we recognized it and we talked about it in the bylaw update >> and I think the only path forward
projects that have applied under it are applying under our existing bylaw as they're allowed to. Right now the our only recourse going forward is to get something on fall town meeting to clarify that language. >> And it's very simple. We just it's a very simple addition just like we have in MOD. >> I I would be hesitant to wait till fall
meeting. It's such a simple change to make. >> I think our guidance is going to be all zoning and land use things are going to be fall town meeting and all >> but then and everything is going to be spring and that's I believe what we're going to be following. >> I can imagine over the summer months
over six months we might get a lot more applications. However, any resident, anybody can >> right >> bring anything they want in front of town meeting. >> Fair enough. >> I'll give you homework. >> Um, but yeah, otherwise this fits every other criteria other than that anomaly
in my mind. >> And I'm just showing the language Steve had, but and I believe Steve, this came directly from the bylaw update right for the top. Yeah, this came from well I I rewarded it slightly, but I included exactly what our town council quoted as
the what we could use to enforce the uses. So that covers it and I added the same thing to mixed use development. I the top of the shop I I slightly rewarded it, but it means the same thing. I believe if we feel like it needs to be
edited, everybody should put in input. I I think we can add it as an agenda item one night and start discussing it. And like I said, there's probably three or four things we want to get small things like not small, but things like this. >> Yeah. >> Small updates that we'd like to put >> probably in separate articles I think is
the only way we're going to be able to address this going forward. >> Sure. And uh we don't have to continue on this because we got his but there's a little bit further where I did write in another section that like basically re restates that each use has to be uh
permitted separately from the top of the shop. So it just double just says it in the bylaw also instead of just in the definition. >> We will uh yeah >> I've already talked to Paul about it and we'll we're going to figure out a meeting where it makes sense in the near future.
>> Okay. and also kind of want to anything going in front of town meeting. I think we should do with the new board. So maybe we can discuss it, maybe get it or we can develop it a little, but I think that's and we only got five meetings left, >> right? I I would love to just get
something rolling here and I'm very hesitant to take any more time on it because we're going to come up to the we just got like five projects recently. We're probably going to get another five or 10 over the next six months. So, we we want to get this in a spring
meeting. It's so simple and I don't think the crowd's going to fight us on it. >> Never never say simple in town meeting. So, >> but yeah, continue. I guess
>> any uh members of the board questions? I say Paul just to with this lot plan here is am I wrong in saying wow that's a lot of parking spaces or am I missing some of
the is it just because of the number of buildings that we're talking about here. >> Yeah we we did a we did a evaluation and it should be on this plan. Uh it does actually indicate the amount of spaces we do have for the comprised properties. Yes. Um the parcel is shown as 110 West
Main Street to the left, 108 West Main Street to the right. And so you're just seeing all the parking spaces in association with both um addresses. Okay. Yeah, I think that's kind of what I was was getting a little bit of whiplash when I see 50s on here and I'm we're talking about adding five units
above something. I go, "Wait a second. My brain had to uh recalibrate there." >> Yeah, it looks like 14 of them at least. might be associated with the condos or town homes on the other side.
>> A couple comments I had written down. I don't see exactly on the plans. Do we have I know this is all existing um but it's a new site plan in front of us and it's a modification. Do we have snow storage areas called out on here? I can't specifically see them.
>> We're actually not modifying the site plan. >> You are modifying a site plan. That's what you're in front of us for. You're in front of us for a site plan modification. Well, no review. >> Yes. >> Yeah, but we're not so we're not changing any like uh drainage. We're not changing any asphalt. But yeah, I guess
we need to indicate storage. I'm sure. >> Do we have the fire department signed off? Make sure there's no problems. We are adding height. We're adding things to the site. We have a fire department sign off. >> I think everybody's checked off in the system. >> Yeah. >> Fire's checked. >> Fire is good.
>> Any consideration to EV spaces, EV parking, new new building code? You're going to have to have >> understood >> EV. >> But is that that's just a question. Is that for residential like house and this is a apartment complex? So I mean that's just with with what we're moving
forward. I just need a direction to go. >> It it's in code. >> Yeah. For new homes and I'm just curious where commercial as well. >> Oh yeah. So there have to be some sort of pads indicated EV. >> Yeah. I don't think it needs to have a charger on it, but you need to like >> It just has to be ready.
>> A port. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Like Okay. I'm not necessarily hamstrung on it. We can do it as a condition as far as maybe labeling snow storage areas and EV um locations. I'd be comfortable with that. >> Yeah.
>> I assume Well, I'm not seeing a whole lot of I assume that snow's probably just pushed off the back by those dumpsters >> most likely. >> I mean, this building's been around for around 30 years. I'm going to
>> take a wild guess and say that driveway ends and snow gets pushed off the back there. >> It It's our standard. >> Yeah, >> it's on my standard list. It's on our site. This is a technically a new site plan. >> I don't see any reason why >> Yeah.
>> Excuse me. Why features that we require on every project just because it's an an existing use, it's being modified. So, at least that's how I look at it. If anyone disagree with me, if you all disagree, that's fine. I mean, but I'm I'm just saying merely they can update
the plan at their will and it can be a condition of the approval. Yeah. Um and Paul, do we have a is I assume is there a um standard condition they can update plans for like script marks or something like that?
>> Okay. >> Well, that could be an administrative if it's >> Yeah. I mean, that could be the building commissioner saying this is an administrative change. Small. >> Okay. >> Scriveners. I mean, it wouldn't be a change to the site plan.
>> No, that's fine. No, I was uh spelling which is not uh yeah, cogent to what we're talking about. >> If there's no other questions from the board, I'll go to our two members left in person if anyone has a comment on this. If not,
If you want if you have comment if you want to come up and >> I don't see >> I don't see any hands raised in Zoom but we do have uh >> there's no hands and there's no chat asking how to raise hands. So I think we're good.
>> We're good on Zoom. Thank you Brian. Uh pleasure of the board. We can continue this. We can close the public hearing and vote on this right now with the conditions that we have listed. What's the pleasure? >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> So the, as I stated before, the chair would entertain a motion to approve site plan modification 19 for 108 West Main Street with our standard conditions plus
location of EV ready spots with snow storage areas labeled. So moved. >> Seconded. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. There you go. >> That's like That's crazy. That's
amazing. Last time I think it was like 45 meetings. >> You want to stay? We can reopen. >> It's up to you. >> Thanks. Have a good one. >> Come back for our bylaws chat. Uh, unless anybody wants to talk about
bylaw and town meeting. >> Rob, >> I look I I I wrote up a document if we want to take a moment to preview it real quick. It's not very long. Well, before before we talk about that, it might it might be worth setting time aside just
to not only go over what he's talking about, but say what do we want to talk about at spring and fall at some meeting, have it on some agenda, just so we can have all our ducks in a row and all that stuff. So, >> I'm thinking new board, >> first meeting of the new board.
>> I'm fine with that, but I would also let this current board have a have a say before I get to the new board. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I I agree. Brainstorming is always good. It's nice to have some dialogue. I I sit there for hours typing on my computer with nobody behind me saying if it's a good idea. >> So,
>> I wish I had that. >> Next meeting. Right now, we just have a new one. That's the Zero West Main. That's uh >> uh Michael Larkin is coming back and then uh one Abrew is for the second meeting. We didn't continue anything to the third tonight, did we?
>> The first one. >> The first one was continued to the third. 61. >> No. No. >> Zero Mansfields on February 3rd. >> Zero. >> It was one of them. >> Yeah, I guess. >> Zero Mansfield. >> And Paul, can I get all the specs? >> Where was that? >> All the layout and everything.
>> That's the one right there by the light. >> Open gov. >> Mansfield. >> It was there. Okay. >> Go to the Dropbox also. >> You go to the Dropbox. >> Okay. >> Should be 2026 meetings. Then you got to go to the address. >> Is that correct? >> If you
Steve, what document did you want to look at quick? If not, the chair is fading. >> Uh, again, it's just under bylaw SW >> DOS though like Paul has >> activated it. >> I don't know if you have it under me. >> I don't know if you did.
>> I haven't seen it other than the >> the top of shop brief thing. That's all I've seen. >> It's a little bit further down. It's the same document. >> But it just it attacks the a little bit with the multi family, too. >> Oh, so going down has a cemetery. Paul, do you want to pull up Steve's doc real
quick before >> I make the motion myself? >> Yeah. >> Or open. >> What do you want >> or and check your spam? All of mine went to my spam junk email. >> I'm good.
>> Yeah, I did check that. Nothing. >> Did you try to activate it yet? >> This thing's kind of going a little This was all it >> No. Okay, let's >> No. So you um Brian on our last email go back to your inbox. >> Okay. >> Pull it up. Which one Steve do you want?
>> Uh one definition. >> It's it's by SW. It's undersc to multi >> activate your open. >> Uh the the fix clean. >> Yeah. Not the one that says clean. >> So this >> I'm out of tea, Stephen. I'm going to
start coughing like crazy. So I'm just telling you >> they're all in here. So when we talk about >> I know I didn't drink a drink so elevator pitch go and you can see like the checklist of >> I mean I I really kind of just wonder like so Dr. Brian Steve set up on this
cuz you definitely want this is like the red >> Oh sorry no not the one with the markings on it. The one that doesn't say clean is what? >> Yeah. Just so we can reference what was already there. >> Okay. Okay. So again, that's just quickly it's just an update to the wording. If we go
over it and want to change it, sure. But it's just definitions. If you want to go to the next section, if we just go through >> my only thought is do we make it specifically what we have already in the MOD? >> Well, I I I kind of
>> we don't want two definition two different definitions of topic shop. >> No, no. Well, I mean this is changing the whole this is well what do you mean like changing the definition? >> Oh, we have a specific definition called out in MOD for to a shop. >> We do.
>> We could modify both at the same time. >> So, they just match. >> I was just thinking, well, we are we just we just did we just did this the MOD. Why not? >> Well, that's why because it's different in the MOD. So, we're kind of matching back to the MODOD thing, the underlining. >> Yeah. If we do we if we change MOD now
that's the attorney general taking a good hard look at this again. >> Okay. So just put it as the exact wording that's in Mod. >> Yeah. >> I think that just makes it it makes the it makes an explanation at town meeting so simple. >> It's not a problem. >> Continuing a definition that we wanted to already and we need to do this.
>> Yeah. >> Right now. >> Okay. That's not an issue. It still works as long as that that underlined part goes in that the attorney said counts and that's the same that's in MOD. Yeah. So, >> you're not on that screen right now if you were trying to show. >> Yeah. So, this is just the next section.
This is just kind of so we can reference the districts better and it needs to be updated anyways because it doesn't have MODOD or the marijuana overlay written currently. It needs an update no matter what. So, this is just a an
organization. Doesn't change anything. Um, you can go a little further and you can see why I made the reference to like commercial districts. So there's a little bit of changes there. Not not terrible, but like right now we regulate where the the housing
can be in the village center core. Why not just throw out any commercial zone? Like that's the beauty of the village center court is that like it places the housing in a good spot on the building. That should apply in the village center or a commercial like whatever commercial zone we put housing, it should go on
top. The bottom should be retail or something. They're just kind of overlapping. If we don't need it, we don't need it. Uh, so aside from single family homes, the accessories and do amendments, all residential uses in a commercial zone should be on top.
I don't know how the board feels about that, but I think it just forces the the placement better. So like village village center I village commercial rather, we allow duplexes, but they'd have to go on top. They just
wouldn't be allowed to be built single like just on as their own. >> It's a large change. >> Okay. >> I like it though. >> I mean again, we can cut it down to the very simplest thing to to fix this and then go forward from here. >> But I I'm trying to, you know, regulate
it all as close to kind of the intent we had in the last one, too. Um if you go a little bit further down the dwelling units per building, we had this in the last thing sort of but not written this way. We we discussed limiting the amount of units in a multif
family. So this is the way we could regulate how many and if we think it's too many it gives us permission to lower the maximum. I don't know how >> how do you lower the max whatever is called out in the bylaw is what you're
if it says six >> he's saying up to but they can go lower >> well I was saying part three it says in any multif family development the permitted number of units per building may be reduced to I can't see the end >> I see it yeah >> yeah it's there you know >> kind of I don't know how to enforce that
it's like uninforceable in my opin it's unlarifying to someone can't read that and say, "How does this apply to my lot?" You know what I'm saying? There's no clarity to it. You can't I can't have a lot right now and say, "Does this apply? I don't know if this apply. How
do how would this be? How do I know how what I can build?" >> Well, I suppose like it'd be like a village commercial lot would come. They know they can build up to 12, but if we don't feel like 12, >> so we get to a meeting and then we say, "But if they go, >> that can't be that." The bylaw has got
to be fairly strict in my opinion. and say this is what you can do. >> Okay. So, line C either get rid of it or make it much more clear about how how much the limit would be. But >> I think what you'd want to do is get rid of three and then lower 12. Not Not
>> Yeah, you want to Yeah. Keep it keep it simple on the developers. >> Yep. I mean, I figured 12 was a reasonable number, but like it's whatever. I I don't The number part three or whatever can be scrapped. F is just uh for top to shop. Just again
reiterating that the approval of the the uses are separate from the approval of top of the shop itself. >> So does that mean then if we have are you issuing a separate approval for commercial and the residential?
>> If the use on the bottom is going to be a store that's already allowed by right. So there's no special permit. If they wanted to put a warehouse on the bottom they need a special permit. Right now the determination says they can put a warehouse on the bottom by Right.
>> Right. >> So this is just saying that >> if we if we change the definition as you had on the first page then it refers you to the non-residential refers you back to the use table. >> So >> it would
>> and it would say yeah whatever if the use is by special permit then you need a special permit. >> So you would need a special permit for it in addition to >> top of the shop >> plan top of the shop. Okay. >> No, you have to defer back to the underlying zoning. >> Yes. >> I think >> and this just reiterates that.
>> I think that's as I don't even think you have to say that out that that >> I I'd like to say it out just as as much as I could just so we can >> how it is though. Um you're not allowed to build something that's not allowed in the zoning. >> Well, that's how I thought that's what I thought it was already, but
>> Well, as it hasn't been spelled out. >> Yeah. >> Clearly. >> Um if you go a little bit further, the special permits for certain uses. I don't know if it's if we want this, but non-residential buildings that are over 30 feet 35 ft tall, that's the
residential height, that's the height of all residential neighborhoods. If and again, in the commercial zone, a residential use has to go by the residential zoning criteria next to it,
meaning 35t tall. So, if a commercial building wants to be taller than 35 feet tall, they have to get a special permit. >> I mean, generally, I think if it's going that big anyway, it would trigger a special permit criteria most likely >> probably because of the whole total
floor area, but I guess you could build a tower. >> Yeah. I mean, I think tower, >> but commercial or village commercial, you can go up to 45 ft, >> right? But because it has residential, you would be bound to the 35 ft rule.
>> So then why have the 45 at all? >> It's >> because you're allowed to get there if you get a special permit. Why have any building go over 10,000 ft? >> But that's that is making it more restrictive if I'm understanding. >> It's making it more restrictive to
non-residential buildings, but it's making it as restrictive as a residential building. any res. You can do the same as residential to go above and beyond residential. >> Yeah. >> Is what the >> top of the shop is under residential.
>> Any top of the shop by right would still be limited to 35 ft because that's what our residential zone says. >> Yeah. >> All residential uses are bound by that 35 foot cap. >> And this is just informal discussion because it's not on our agenda. So we can't
>> this is just ideas off the cuff. I think >> give everybody needs time to think about it for sure. >> Yeah. >> Um and then if we go beyond this the next page, uh all that in yellow didn't get deleted. It just got rewarded into the
next section. So if you go down just a little bit and this sort of just right now we only allow multiple buildings for housing for the elderly in a commercial zone. So, I've corrected that to mean we could put multiple buildings for top of the shop or mixeduse developments that
contain residential uses. So, if there was a commercial property and it wanted two or three buildings on it and each building was top of the shop, that would be permitted. Right now, under our current code, we shouldn't be able to do that. >> Right now, you are not allowed to have
multiple residential buildings >> in in any commercial property. >> Yeah. Um, >> yeah. So, that's part of it. And then again, reiterated on any lot and within any building that contains more than one principal use, each principal use shall be subject to separate permitting and
approval. Okay. Alan, do you mind if I go ahead? Yeah, I think I need to read this more, Steve, but I think my initial reaction is >> I would be more inclined to support the stripped down band-aid version at this
point in time. >> I I agree, but I want to just set this is where I'm at. This is what I think we need. >> I mean, this might not be triage, but this is things we kind of need. I think my brain is >> thousand things we kind
>> Yeah. I think my brain is triage only >> to to avoid the you're just trying to backdo the recode. >> Yeah. >> Paper cut at a time. We're going this is a band-aid. This is why. Thank you very much. >> I mean that's what I'm kind of it's the
top of the shop use the definition the amount of units and the scale of buildings. >> Yeah. But the top of the shop would regulate a lot of it right there. >> Yeah. So I >> and I I I think that's pretty much it. There's a cluster development section.
We don't have to go into that right now. >> Thank god. >> Well, the chair is looking for a motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. All in favor? >> I I >> HI EVERYONE, IT'S PETER HERE.
>> Hi Peter. >> Hi guys. How you man? was at the girls basketball game and they won 5521 over Paulstead. >> Oh, yay. >> All right, Peter. Thank you, sir.