Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, December 2nd meeting of the Norton Planning Board. The public is welcome to participate in person and remotely. We are here in person at the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street in the Crane Room and you can also join online via
the link in the agenda. Please feel free to email any questions before the meeting to town staff as listed in the agenda. I will call this meeting to order. We have five members in person and one member
Eric Norris remote. We have Rob Welsh, >> Tim Griffin, myself, Alan Boule, Steve Warshaw, and Bridget Carr in person. We don't have any planning, board, business, or policies to discuss at the time. I will pass down some bills for
the group to go over and we do not have any minutes this evening. First item a little out of order on the agenda is special permit 28 for Zero Sturdy Street. The owner applicant is Thomas Graci. The applicant is looking to get a duplex on his property. This
applicant is requesting a continuence to our January 6th meeting 2026. So the chair would entertain a motion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. And since we are all not in person, we'll do a roll call vote. Rob, how do you vote? >> I. >> Tim,
>> yes. I am a yes. Steve, >> yes. >> Bridget, >> yes. >> And Eric, >> yes. >> Yes. >> So, special permit 28 for zero sturdy street will be continued to January 6th.
>> Next item on our agenda is the remand for special permit 30 for zero Mansfield Avenue. The owner is Pern Homebuilders LLC. The applicant is Allen and Major Associates, Inc. The applicant is looking to construct two 36-unit apartment buildings. This application
was remanded to the planning board by the Bristol County Superior Court and this was continued from our last meeting on November 18th. Mr. Jacobe, how are you, sir? >> Good evening. Uh Jack Jacobe, 144 Bank Street, Adelboroough, representing the applicant. Uh so tonight we have our
traffic expert uh whose name was up there a minute ago. Uh Dan >> is up there. >> He's waving. >> He's in the corner. Ah, there he is up in the upper right. So, uh, we're going to ask him to, uh, speak in a moment to give you the
traffic update. Uh, with also with regard to traffic, the peer review came in today. I don't know if you've had a chance to see it, but I did get a chance to see it this afternoon. Uh, and, um, I think it's safe to say that it raised no issues.
>> I can confirm. And uh there were a couple of questions that were raised about just confirming sightelines and other things and I'm going to ask Dan to uh respond to that. Second thing is we've updated the plans and um Phil Cordderero is here uh from the
engineering firm to show you what those updates are. Uh and then lastly, I put together a memo which I did file with you. Don't know if you've had a chance to read it. Um, but I took my notes and I um wrote down what I thought were the
issues that the board raised that needed answers and issues that neighbors raised that needed answers. And so the last thing we'll do is that I'll go over that and then um at the end we'll ask for a continuence. Um, we are in front of the
conservation commission on Monday uh to open the hearings with them. And so I'm going to probably suggest that unless there's a reason you want us back in two weeks that we go to your January 6th meeting because we want to make sure that the conservation commission doesn't
have any changes that they request to the plans because we certainly wouldn't want to um uh have two competing sets of plans at the same time. So, with that having been said, Dan,
introduce yourself, please. >> Thank you very much. Can everyone hear me? Okay, >> we can. >> All right. Uh, for the record, uh, my name is Daniel Baciva. I'm a traffic engineer with Vanessin Associates. We are the traffic consultants for the
project. Um, as was stated, I'm just going to kind of give you a uh brief update as to where we uh lie with the uh traffic uh analysis. >> We lost you, Dan. >> Brian, is that on your end or is that
his end? >> It's it's showing up on Zoom that he has unmute. No. >> Yeah, Dan, we completely lost you. >> Let's just give him a minute to reconnect. >> When in doubt, turn it off and on again.
Is that >> a key joke about that? >> It's not a joke. It's real. Do you remember to ask me after the very long time I hear you? It's actually pretty fun. >> How's about that now? Can everyone hear me again? >> Yep. >> Yes.
>> All right. I apologize for that. >> Let's try this one more time. And I'll try not to touch any wires. Um so we performed a uh an updated assessment uh that compared the traffic characteristics of the current uh
development program of the project that is before you uh which is 72 units to those of the original development program uh that we had previously assessed. um a couple of years ago now at this point I believe we had completed a detailed traffic study or a
transportation impact assessment uh that had done exactly that uh that assess the impact of the project on the surrounding uh transportation network as well as provided recommendations relative to site access site circulation um as well
as potential uh off-site mitigation uh to uh address the impact of the project at uh intersections not directly next to the project site. Uh that study was presented before this board uh was peer-reviewed by VHB and was revised
such that BHB had uh no outstanding comments um and that they were in general agreements with the conclusions the uh and recommendations uh that came out of that original study. Similarly, uh this recent assessment we had uh
completed uh was also peer-reviewed by VHB. Um the assessment uh indicated that the 72 unit uh development would not result in significantly more traffic than the 60-unit development we had
assessed. Um again and as was noted uh BHB said that they uh were in general uh agreements that the uh increase in traffic was not anything significant um and that they uh were not requesting any
uh additional uh operational analysis at this time as it relates to traffic. Uh just for context, the uh current development program is expected to generate between four to six additional peak hour vehicle trips over
what was previously assessed. Uh which is an increase in traffic of one new vehicle every between 10 to 15 minutes. uh which is not a uh significant increase in traffic that would be noticeable um and would not uh change
the results of that uh previous uh analysis that we had completed. Um as such we believe that the conclusions and recommendations of the uh initial peer-reviewed traffic study uh remain relevant for the current development
program. Um, just relative to the couple of outstanding comments, uh, mainly the one about the sight distance that BHB had reviewed, um, the driveways have shifted slightly from what we had reviewed, um, but due to the flat and
relatively straight nature of a 140 by the project site. Um provided that whatever trimming of trees and vegetation uh that entirely happens within the project site or within the public right of way um occurs uh lines of sights pretty much
anywhere along the uh frontage of the project site are going to meet or in most cases uh vastly exceed the recommended minimums for safe operation. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have either
about the study we just prepared or anything uh relative to traffic that's happened for this project. >> Mr. Chairman, >> thank you. >> Yes, Rob, go ahead. >> I'd like to ask if um just Yeah, the microphone >> just for clarification, you said the six
an additional six vehicle trips, was that per day? >> That was during the uh peak hours. Um, so the your weekday morning and weekday evening commuter peaks, it comes out to around
>> uh 80 vehicle trips, 78 uh vehicle trips over the course of an entire day. >> Okay, that okay, that number makes more sense to me. Okay, >> 78 in addition to >> 78 in addition to what was assessed as a part of the previous study, which brings
the total to 530. Yeah, in the report it's 538 daily trips, half entering, half exiting, 45 during the morning peak hour, and 52 during the
weekday evening peak hour. >> And I will also note that a vehicle trip as it relates to this is a one-way trip. So for the daily number of a vehicle that leaves in the morning to go to work counts as one trip then comes home after
work counts as two. So 530 540 vehicles is around 260 270 vehicles that uh leave and come back. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
>> Eric, I'm going to go to you just to make sure you can still hear us and make sure you don't have any questions. It's looking good, too. >> No questions at the moment. >> Thank you. >> Bridget, Steve, you good for now? >> Yeah, I'm okay. >> Dan, if you want to hang around um for a
little bit when we go to questions from the audience, maybe there might be one for you. Um we can tackle that at that time. >> We'll do. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. interrupt you. >> Uh, good evening. For the record, Phil Cordero from Allen and Major Associates.
I have generally a short list uh to present and then I'm happy to answer any questions for the planning board. Uh, since our last meeting with the board, we did receive, we actually received it just prior to the meeting with the board two weeks ago, um, the peer review from
Pat Brennan, the town's consultant. I understand Pat's online in the event you need him this evening. Uh but in the interstitial space between meetings, we provided a response package to Mr. Brennan's comments. Uh he had a handful of technical related matters. Uh we
believe we satisfactorily had addressed those and Mr. Brennan actually issued a letter to the board this afternoon identifying uh in his words and he could of course clarify uh that we've addressed his comments that he had initi initially raised. Happy to walk the board through what we did, how we
addressed them. They were all very technical in nature. Uh but happy to present that information if you so chose this evening. Uh we walked away from the meeting two weeks ago with a handful of requests for some information from the board that required a handful of minor
changes to the site plans. These were also factored into the plans that were submitted uh through the Norton Town portal to make sure they could be added to the record. Um, first and foremost, we talked about parking spaces at the last meeting. Uh, we were asked to sign
a couple of spaces in front of each of our buildings to be those high turnover delivery ride share spaces. So, we have done that. We have one space marked in front of each building uh sort of proximate to the outside edge. Thank Thank you, Paul. If you could uh bring
up the plan, that's helpful. Uh so for building one which is on the left the parking space is actually on the right side of the building. And then conversely for building two which is the right building that shared parking space is on the leftmost um approximate to the
door but sort of on the outskirts so the residents have primary access to the preferential spaces along the line of the building. Um, also on this plan, uh, is we did have to note that there were electric car charging stations required
under the code. So, we have added those along the front of our site and we've added those notationally in terms of two formats. So the stretch code requires that 20% of the total provided spaces be uh compatible with electric car charging
stations 10% required at initial occupancy and the remaining 10% to be added should we have the expansion of need. So scalability so we denoted um the initial occupancy load for EV spaces as well as the future those collectively
reach the 20% threshold which is the code requirement. Um, so we have those on the plans for you. Um, we had a little bit of a discussion about snow storage during the last meeting and we acknowledged to the board we have limited area for snow storage. Uh, so we
wanted to make sure on the plans we did memorialize the intent that I verbalized, which is if we run out of capacity, we would have to remove it from the site in accordance with Mass D's snow removal policy. Uh, so attorney Jacobe uh, put that language in his
letter. We made sure that the snow disposal guidance is in our operation and maintenance plan which is in my response letter in addition to the original submission package and we also added that notation to the plan. So it does exist and can run with the property with the approved plans uh that
hopefully this board ultimately chooses to approve. So we've added that notational requirement to make sure we're taking care of our site. Um in no case does snow get stored at the entrances. It can't block those side sight lines which came up during the VHB
review and certainly we can't pour it into the wetlands which we'll discuss that with conservation at the opening to our meeting uh next week. Um the other question that was raised was really more of a confirmation. Um there was some concerns that the the site driveways as
proposed we wanted to ensure that those aligned with the preferential locations across 140. Um, so there was a separate graphic, Paul, I apologize to make you jump around. Uh, but sheet believe it's C103 was a separate graphic that we
thought best highlighted how the driveways align with the existing conditions. It would look like this. Yeah, that's okay. So, we'll wait for just a moment. Just think we could all be doing this with 60 packet page packets of paper.
>> Wait, did I >> see the other one? It was in this packet. I must have maybe I overshot it. >> It was It was a separate file. >> Separate from separate. So, it was it
was actually at the back of um Jack's letter. >> Okay. It was back. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> We'll look at Dan while we're waiting. Hi, Dan. >> Hi, Dan. >> It's page 11. >> I can see myself on the big screen. I
imagine I'm huge in the room. >> You do have a large head on the screen here. Yes, >> here's a here's a large head in real life. >> Wizard of Oz. It's that effect. >> I I don't mean to build suspense, but obviously once the plan comes up, what what you will find is that the I guess
the northerly entrance we aligned it between 72 and 76. So the exit is se 72 and 76 Mansfield uh avenue such that the exiting vehicles did not align with the residential house. There we go. Um
so the the driveway is intentionally focused so it straddles the property line between 72 and 76. And then on the right side the right uh the southerntherly driveway that is aligned with the center point of the bus parking
land. Uh, so neither driveway aligns with residential property. So, we addressed that headlight glare, which was a concern of the planning board. It may be more visible on on your smaller screens. It's a little hard to see the lines on the projector image. >> I see.
>> That one. Oh, okay. >> Okay. So, that one actually is across from Produce Barn. If you slide them down, put them in front of Jim's. >> Okay. Had to ask. Okay.
Um, and that that's really about it from our end u from the engineering side and I'm happy to field any questions the board may have as we continue. >> Do we have any questions for the board for Mr. Darl specifically to the site plan or anything that he can answer
while he's standing and looking at us. >> Eric, I'm going to go to you again just to make sure. >> Uh, I don't have any questions at the moment. >> Thank you, sir. It appears we're good with you for now, Phil. Thank you, sir.
>> Mr. Jacobe. >> Yeah. So, uh, I'm just going to go over the things in my memo that we haven't talked about already. Uh, so the first thing is that you asked me to, um, email the town manager as to whether it should
be a deed restriction or a deed for the portion of lot E. And uh I thought the appropriate way to do it was to send it to uh the planner Paul and have him discuss it rather than me trying to send the town manager 15 pages of plans and
diagrams. And uh so the answer came back uh verbally to me tonight from Paul before the meeting started that the town manager would prefer the deed restriction as opposed to a deed. So, we would continue to own it, maintain it, pay taxes on it, but we would work out
the language with your town council to make sure it could never be built on or developed in any way, shape, or form. So, that answers that one. Uh, the second thing was, and Paul, I don't know if you have the building elevation
available because you asked to see that. And while he's looking for that, I can move on. Oh, wait a minute. Maybe he has it. Uh, yeah, there was a second one that actually had the trees and all, but uh that we sent you later on this afternoon, so maybe in the portal, but
this is >> it's right below it in open gov. It almost looks like a double file. >> Yeah. Okay, I can pull that up. >> Weren't sure we were going to get the second one to you in time for the
meeting tonight, so we went with what we had first thing in the morning, but then we were able to uh have our uh architect do a better job. Um, you did all that work, then we'll we'll certainly look at it. >> Yeah, I think it's the second one.
the the 110 p.m. That one. >> Yeah. Ah, there it is. you can. So that uh that's one building and then if you scroll down a little bit you'll see the second one. We wanted to reflect the fact that the um wetlands behind are
fairly wooded. Uh and we think this does justice to that situation. Uh moving along you had asked about >> Mr. Kobe just from a clarification perspective. This is showing the elevations is that from
>> Mansfield >> ground level from Mansfield Avenue. Yes. So from the existing grade of Mansfield Avenue up because I know we're filling and then the buildings on top. >> Okay, >> that is correct. >> It it doesn't account for though the tree plantings and everything along the road obviously, right? We have
plantings. Do I remember on the landscaping plan there? >> Yes, but >> yeah, >> if those >> I'm just put those if you lose the elevation aspect. No, I was just confirming. >> Just putting it out there that there is trees and there is landscaping between the road.
>> Absolutely. Um, but if you wanted to see what the building looked like, >> I'm pointing out for everyone else. So, uh, next thing was you had asked about the parking in the front issue and John Thomas sent an email, uh, which we
attached to our, uh, uh, to our memo which detailed the reasons why the, uh, conservation commission was particularly concerned with this. Um, and I don't know that you need me to read that out loud. You all
have it. But uh and certainly that issue will come up again Monday uh when we talk with them to make sure that John is still reflecting the will of the conservation commission. Uh next, uh the
uh nearest house on Reservoir Street people asked about and so we did have uh a plan that we submitted that showed uh that it was uh 373 feet across the wetlands and across uh Reservoir Street
uh to get to um to the nearest house, which is more than a football field. And certainly there is vegetation there. Uh the next issue you wanted us to combine lots D and E and I don't know that I want Paul to have to
go back to it but in the it was attached in what I sent it was also attached it was also I think the third page of Phil's plans where we left C by itself and we combine D and E into one lot and
then show the area to be donated. Um so we did that. Um the next issue was um section 175-156 uh of the village commercial guidelines.
And that section provides in evaluating and rendering a decision on a proposed development plan which requires site plan approval andor a special permit. The planning board shall consider the degree to which the proposed development achieves the following objectives and
may require conditions or modifications to the proposed site plan to ensure the objectives are fulfilled. I respit uh respectfully submit to you that these items in this section are not absolute requirements but merely
guidelines and factors to help guide the board in making a decision. SE subsection B9 states to the extent feasible parking areas shall be located to the side or rear of structures. The qualifier to the extent feasible does
not make this an absolute but merely a general objective. The as I said earlier John Thomas has filed by email the reasoning of the conservation commission in requiring the parking areas to be located in front of the structures and farther away from the
wetlands. So it is respectfully submitted that this is the reason that the words to the extent feasible is included because it's a it's a goal but it's not an absolute.
Uh subsection C design subsection 2A is entitled design in the village commercial district. It provides that development should preserve and enhance New England village scale and character. Please note that the preparatory word should is used rather than the mandatory
word shall. This section goes on to state to accomplish this objective, the following design guidelines should be observed. A buildings buildings should be placed close to the road and sidewalk to encourage pedestrian traffic. Parking areas should be placed to the rear of
the buildings. Again, respectfully noted that the word should is used and that these are guidelines. So I would submit to you that you as a planning board have the discretion to allow deviations from the guidelines
where conditions so warrant and that the conservation commission's concern about protecting the wetland's resources provides adequate and I believe compelling justification for locating the buildings away from Route 140.
There were a number of issues raised by neighbors. The first one was don't make Norton into Mansfield. Um it's unclear exactly what the neighbor was referring to with regard to the town of Mansfield. It seems like a fine community to me. Uh
but that does not reflect any of the special permit standards that this board is allowed or required to consider. Uh the next thing was to make sure the traffic study reflects all new proposed projects and my understanding is that it does and your peer reviewer has
concurred. Uh the next one was three-story buildings don't belong here. Uh and my understanding is there's a three-story building now at 77 West Main Street. A proposed fourstory building at 61.
But more importantly, your bylaw does not limit height by stories. Rather it looks at the number of feet. In this case the limit allowed by right is 35 feet. We are at 34.5 ft in height. So we are within the allowable limit. >> That is correct.
>> The next issue was that the buildings are not in keeping with the neighborhood. I guess the first issue there is always to define the relevant neighborhood. Um, with regard to the single family homes across Reservoir Street, they're at least 373 ft away from the proposed
project and more importantly with an extensive wooded wetland uh, and this Reservoir Street in between. Those across Route 140, which you had just seen the plan, is a mixture of residential and commercial uses, including a gas station and a store, as
well as single family residences. We submit to you that two apartment buildings located on 9 acres is in keeping with the mix of uses in the area. Another neighbor suggested that we are
developing to 10 times or six times the byite density. I would suggest to you that the word density appears in only one place in your bylaw and that is found in the density bonus section 19.13.
Other than that, article 4 use regulations and article 6 dimensional regulations do not contain a density requirement. Therefore, the calculations offered by this subutter do not apply. It also appears that he determined the likely
number of single family homes that would be allowed on these 12 acres and compared that to the number of apartments proposed. The relevant calculation is offered in 6.2 the table of dimensional density requirements. It provides that in the village commercial
district 44,000 square feet is required for any development of three or more units per building. So I would suggest to you that the density argument is a red herring. Also some said that the sewer should be
gravity not force man. Uh we are talking extensively with the water and sewer commissioners about this. I would suggest to you that that call in the end is theirs uh and that we will comply with whatever their requirements are.
Uh next one was that this does not satisfy any existing need. The 2021 master plan adopted by this board cites as Norton's vision for housing to increase and diversify Norton's housing supply particularly for
seniors, young families, and first-time home buyers. I submit to you there is an existing need for apartments that would serve a diverse population which would include seniors and young families. The master plan specifically provides that the town should allow for new kinds of
housing. Goal 2.2 two suggests build a range of market rate housing to meet the demands of young families, the senior population, and first-time home buyers. I will point out to you that we have agreed to abide by your 10% requirement for affordability in this project.
As I understand it, the town's housing shortage has been an increasing concern over recent years. Uh, and considerable effort has gone into revitalizing downtown. The proposed development would bring with it 72 new housing units, all
of which would be located within walking distance of Library Square in the town common, an outcome that would certainly be socially and economically desirable to Norton's future. The property is located within the village commercial district, which was designed not only to
increase housing, but also to help the town adapt in a way that helps the community to manage growth pressures and capture opportunities for economic development. According to the Norton Village Center study, the proposed development is just the type of residential housing that would help
facilitate a walkable environment in the downtown. I would note that we are installing sidewalks along the entire frontage of the property and curving around uh onto a short portion of reservoir. There's no doubt that there's an
existing need for housing not only here in Norton, but everywhere in the state. Massachusetts has among the highest home and rental prices of any state in the nation. The master plan presents the main missions for the town to achieve over
the life of the plan 5 to 10 years and it rated the lack of diverse housing to be a high priority. We submit that this is the type of housing that is called for in the master plan. And if you see page 24 of the master plan, it
explicitly calls for multif family and townhouse construction in this district. That same neighbor also said that this would hurt local businesses. I find that to be exactly the opposite. If you add a larger universe of customers, it should
help business, not hurt business. Adding 72 apartment dwellers should mean a positive for business rather than a negative. Uh that same abuter also said that there would be detrimental effects on the
neighborhood envir and environment. He didn't say what those were. Um and it's hard to respond to exactly what he's saying. He also said that housing is not socially or economically desirable.
Again, this can't be farther from the truth. Housing is a basic need. Someone asked if blasting will be needed. The answer is no. And someone also said, "No one benefits from the sewer extension except for this
project." And we were authorized by the water and sewer commission to say to you that this extension of the sewer is in their master plan. They just don't have the funds to do it now. And so getting this done um and being turned over to
them is certainly in keeping with what they vision envision for sewer in the community. I had given you a number of $900,000 the last meeting because that was my memory from two years ago. Obviously costs have risen. We are now
looking at about 1.25 million to 1.5 million depending on exactly which requirements the water and sewer commissioners give us. uh and that will be given to the town. And the last issue that I noted in my uh
notes from last time was that Mansfield Avenue floods is claimed by a neighbor. And just to be clear, we are containing all of the water on our property. We are dealing with it on our property. So, in
the event that Mansfield Avenue floods now, our water will not be going there any longer and we can't control water that comes across the street or from other properties, but we certainly uh can control ours. And as Phil told you,
this was um peer-reviewed and the storm water plan uh works and works well. So, uh those are the things that I wanted to point out to you. Um, don't know if you have any questions for me. >> I don't have any questions for you. I
believe you crossed off everything that was on my list. Very well. Um, I'll go to any members of the board. Any questions currently for >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. >> And this is my own knowledge even my answer might come from within the board.
um the difference between a forced uh the force sore and the gravity and the master plan. Wasn't there a restriction that people couldn't tie into a forest or how did that work? >> We can ask Mr. Corder if he wants to speak it. The way I understand it to be
>> a forest man you can tie into. Um they'll be leaving stubs I believe for every property to tie into. It's just an additional piece of equipment that's required to tie into it. Yeah, >> I think it may be tied to some of the discussions with Paul and maybe you can
answer this around like Elm Street and things where we're putting in lines that people can't tie in and some of the nuances there is >> right. So, so first if this is a a privately funded line, there's the there is no mandate to connect except if your
system fails. Title 5 says you if a sewer if the sewer is available, you can. I'm not an engineer and and there are circumstances where a force man the pressure is so high that you're not going to tie a single family in unless that property
owner, the single family property owner puts a pump in to offset the pressure. Um it's easier to connect to gravity lines because the pressure is just not there. It's just simple flow. >> So um it's just going to depend on the
engineering on a force man. You can tie into it, but it probably would be at a higher cost because you have to put the pump in gravity line. It would just be a relatively simple connection to that. Yeah, >> I think I think the applicant touched on that last meeting, but
>> I was going to ask uh the difference also between a gravity and a forest main >> would be the potential for future development. Correct. Where a forest a forest main is going to be at its limit pretty much where it stands with most development including the tie-ins that
are planned for it. But then expanding beyond what's there now >> would be limited. Yeah, that that I >> compared to No, that's not true. I think rather than me standing here, we should ask the experts to talk. >> But the size of the line's going to make a big difference, but I don't know how
the pumps will affect that issue. But >> because I'm just thinking of like if this is a key point of this project, the benefit comes from the potential of future development for the town, >> right? It just to weigh in and I won't profess to be a sewer expert either, but having a little more knowledge on the
subject, Paul's homing right in on the matters. So the complexity is all centered around the hydraulics and because it's a force main in order to enter the force main you need to involve pumps. We will have a pump station on our site. If any of the homeowners ultimately elect to tie into it they
will also need a pump. We are going with a small diameter force main to keep those pressures as low as possible within the line which allows for easier connection. You still need a pump but it's an easier connection. The bigger the line, the more capacity going through it, the harder it would be for a
homeowner to tie into it rather than a developer such as this. In terms of the scalability for the town, it becomes a bit of a coordinated effort between when our pumps would be running or the the largest demand user on the line, when
those pumps would be running relative to what they foresee to be the future needs. The pumps can be synchronized to work with that growth. We can pump during off hours. We can pump at a different phasing schedule. There are hydraulic things that can be affected in
the line to make it scalable for the town. So I I guess what I would say without talking myself into circles in front of the board is that despite being a force main, it still has growth capabilities. You just have to consider
what the pumping situation is on a case-byase basis. That's all. And again, just going forward, just trying to think of what would be the future development. I'm not thinking capacity for a couple more single family homes. If if we're putting sewer running
up 140, the intention is almost certainly more commercial development >> of at least a reasonable in like >> in those areas, zone, village, commercial. the the market dynamics would change in this area probably significantly
with having sewer there because we know a lot of these areas they don't perk well. Uh and you're seeing it that some properties are vacant and a lot of that's because how you know poor the soil is you're right near the reservoir. So a sewer line would would increase the
development potential >> in that in this area. Yeah. >> And if this project were going to happen, we would want to aim for the maximum capacity that we could get going down for future development. >> We don't want to stunt everything beyond
this project. >> So >> I think that would be a lost opportunity if we did that. >> So we do have a month in between for this for our next meeting since we do know we are continuing tonight. Can we reach out to water and sewer? I'm sure they'll be continuing there. Correct. Maybe we can get a letter. we can get
them to clarify and we can address that at the next meeting. >> Yeah, we we had our initial meeting with them. They've already seen these plans from a couple of years ago. I met with them a couple of weeks ago to reintroduce the project, get their buy in. We want to engage Weston and Samson on your behalf to review it. So, all of
those things are are starting to get in motion. >> So, given another month, if we have time, maybe a letter for them or Paul can have a conversation with them and we can address that specific issue of expansion in the future. And I think Steve to your your point is further if we put in a forest main that
starts at this property what happens to properties beyond this site on 140 and is it can you expand a forest main backwards rather than just infill development. >> Yes, >> that's I think what you're asking, right? >> I I think the whole way along this line
one we're gonna the intention is to continue beyond this project. We're going to have it extend to here and then hopefully continue extending up to the bridges and then maybe someday cross the reservoir the to the other side. So we have a whole loop and everywhere along the entire village commercial commercial
commercial area corridor would be sewarded. That's ideal. Or if we want to keep that section of 140 as little single family homes, there's no value in doing this sewer. We have one intention one way or another.
We're either building and going kind of big, aiming for commercial development, >> right? >> Or we're not. And that's a kind of a choice that this project hinges on, but we can't do it in a halfass way.
>> Pardon my language. >> We do want Paul, >> do you have any addition? >> Does that give you the color that you would need to ask water and sewer about that? And this is this is the conversation I've been having with the superintendent. So he
he's aware of these issues and we're on the same page. Th this is the same issue, you know, as we're looking at, you know, this opportunity is coming along here, but we're also looking, you know, to to expand sewer on 123
uh for these reasons. uh you know for certainly environmental but also we're starting to see what the sewer line is potentially capable of what it's leading to on 123. You've seen a few you've approved a few projects different area
here obviously than 123 but um you know there was a they had a a sewer master plan that did talk about connecting all the way up to the the existing sewer line at at the shopping center. So, this is a great opportunity and we just need
to see how we optimize it. >> You good, Steve? >> So, yeah. >> I don't know if >> Weston and Samson or somebody would know off the top of their head like with the pressures that this line would handle
like is the pump that a single family homeowner is that What scale of a pump is that in terms of pump >> cost and everything? >> It's called a grinder pump. >> Yeah. >> And and it's fairly common.
>> Yeah. But I'm sure they can give like a Okay. It's a Is it a $200 pump, a 200 a $2,000 pump or a $20,000 pump? That we can get that from water and sewer probably, I would expect. So >> yeah, it's probably better to get the answers from those who know rather than
us. >> There's a big scale in >> Well, I'd let them be your >> seven grand is the >> Okay, >> but I also I also understand your point that we're going to put the sewer line in. We need to do it right. >> So that's all that we had to present
tonight. Um so we'll sit down and listen. Before we go for public comment, I would like to go to a couple people that are online. We have uh Pat Brennan who is the town's peer reviewer. Um at the expense of the applicant, the
town hires a professional engineer to review all the engineering plans and everything submitted um as far as engineering, storm water, etc. Both for the planning board and conservation. None of us are engineers. Um so we rely on experts like Mr. Brennan to make sure
everything's on the straight and narrow. Um specifically, Mr. Brennan, how are you? Um, we had multiple comments last meeting from Abutters with flooding issues on their property and I would like to put to rest or put to ease people's minds of this project worsening
existing flooding concerns in neighbors yards and neighboring properties. If you could address any of that, that'd be appreciated. >> Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Pat Brennan with PGB Engineering. Um, as the chair mentioned, I did review the project for the board and the
conservation commission. Mainly the storm water was the focus of my review. Um, and as Mr. Cordio mentioned, I submitted a letter back um, mid November um, with some comments. Um, Mr.
Cordderero revised the plans, sent them back to me with the revisions that I had asked for to address my comments. Um but the main thing with the storm water the both the state regulations as well as the Norton storm water management bylaw
requires that any development keep um the runoff from their property at or below existing conditions. So you cannot um have additional flow off of a property um either into the roadway or
onto abudding properties than what exists today. And that's why we have these um detention infiltration basins um to hold that storm water, infiltrate it back into the ground and maintain it on site. Um the calculations do show
that they um this project will maintain everything at or below existing conditions in terms of runoff offsite. Um so they do comply with both the mass D stormwater standards and the Norton stormwater bylaw. Um so you know if if
there's existing flooding issues today this I think Mr. Cordiero mentioned this as well. This project um is not going to solve those problems but it's not going to worsen them. Um it will um they will
be um mitigating any runoff from their site and keeping it on their site. I think that's that's just the summary and I'd be happy to answer any more specific questions if there are any. >> Thank you. Any members of the board have
any questions for Mr. Brennan? >> I don't. >> I'm good. Thanks, Jim. >> I was And Mr. Brennan, they've addressed all of your substantive comments to this point in terms of um I know a lot of it gets into adding notations on the plan
that don't materially affect the design, but to your from your perspective, they've met all of your requirements. >> Yes, they have at this point. >> Thank you, sir. If you could hang out just for a few more minutes, I'm going to go to comment for the public. We
might need you or Thank you. Unless the board have any questions, I'm going to go to members of the public for a public comment. I would ask anyone online, if you would like to make a comment, please raise your virtual hand. And we have members
here in public that are going to speak also. We will go back and forth between in the room and online if so needed. You're up, sir. Please name and address for the record. >> Uh, Bill Rotundi, 17 Reservoir Street.
Couple questions. Not being a a contractor in any way, >> can you put the picture of >> the color one? >> The kind of the site where it showed the driveways and whatnot.
>> The elevation. >> Yeah, >> I think it was elevation. >> I've got the elevation. You want Bill? You want the the driveway? >> Yeah, the driveways. Ju just to ask a clarifying question. Okay. >> That was in the letter file.
>> Yeah. Um, >> where did I Nope, that's not it. >> I don't know. >> Oh, here we go. >> It's coming right up. >> Bear with us. It takes a minute to to find it and find it.
>> I don't know why. >> Here it is. So, what the gentleman just said was it the the improvements aren't going to change water flow that's any worse than it currently is.
If I have that right. >> Correct. >> So, a couple of clarifying points. one your apples and oranges because you're raising it five feet. So to raise it five feet, you're now causing different
runoff than you would have at the flat surface that it is apples and >> to account for that. Yeah. >> So as the driveway hits 140, are there catch basins there? Because you're going to have a hill
going down. slight hill, but you're still gonna have a hill. And that's where the flooding is going to occur is the water coming down the hill into the road if you're not catching it at that point. And that's
what happens across the street at the produce barn is the water goes down the the parking lot of the produce barn, causes a flood right there. So, how are you catching that water? not
quite understanding that. So that's point number one. Point number two, and I haven't done my homework. How long is each building >> roughly?
I don't have it in my head. >> It's just my spell so many things. >> Yeah. >> Changed. So yeah. >> Yeah. I don't have it off the top of my head either. I got too many numbers. >> You're stealing it right now, I think. >> Well, let's
This might not have the numbers on it, but put it up there. This is the elevation. >> It's a race. Let's see who finds it first. >> Yeah, >> this is Well, this is not really answering Bill's question, I don't think.
>> Would it be on the plans? >> It's Yeah, >> it's going to be buried somewhere in a plan. 220 plus >> plus or minus 220 each building. >> That's about what I was getting to you. >> So
>> got to be one of those >> 220 ft, three stories plus a roof. I'm going to go back to doesn't fit the neighborhood. If I'm If I'm walking down the street
here and all I see is the building and I'm walking for 220 ft. All I see is a ginormous building, three stories plus a roof high. How does that fit into the neighborhood?
I don't see it. I'm not against housing. Truly not. and there's probably a need for housing. This is not fitting into the character that is that section. And if you go back
to the picture, the majority of the building is a, you know, equal to the tree line tree height. It's an enormous, no offense to the developer eyesore.
Too big for the area, but thank you. I'll get you your answer for the uh runoff. Phil, do you want to address his first question? >> If I could, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Um, so I I would just want to clarify um the gentleman asked the the question
about the runoff, but before I get to that, just to identify, I don't want to get too deep into numbers, but Mansfield Avenue is generally 1221 in terms of elevation. these buildings respectively from right to left at 124
and 123.9. So the building is only elevated from the street level a couple of feet overall. I think the gentleman mentioned five to six feet. So that is a that's a misnomer. We are elevated above the street but not to that degree. Uh but
what we have done is in both of the driveways what we do is we have to hold by design standards the gutter line of the primary street to make sure we are not taking their flow and then conversely that we are not giving flow to them. So we hold the gutter line. We
create a slight rise in the driveway and then divot down. And in that divot, we have catch basins inside each of our driveways to prevent any runoff from our site from ever reaching Mansfield Avenue. And then the internal parking lot is certainly graded and sloped that
it'll go to other catch basins on site. But each of those driveways is specifically crafted to prevent that runoff condition. That is the concern. So as Mr. Brennan mentioned as attorney Jacobe mentioned the storm water management standards require that we
don't add additional flow to the discharge areas. So in this case our discharge area is the street, it's also the wetlands. So our calculations have to prove that out and and we believe that's what we've done here. And >> Bill, does that
>> Yeah, I think Paul to the second question, I think I looked it up and uh I think Norton adopted the storm water management bylaw in like 2016 or so. >> Does that sound about right? I >> think so. >> So, anything that predates that predates the rules around it basically,
>> right? >> Produce barn would certainly qualify for predating. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The other folks too, it's it's very clear too, Masdot also has a has a role in this. Masdot doesn't want to accept additional drainage into their
systems either. So it it really is an additional mandate beyond the town of Noan bylaws that we have to handle our own storm water as well. >> Thank you, Phil. >> Sure. >> Question. >> Um you had said um I thought I did hear
previously um that you guys were elevating the lot. Uh, it was five feet. You're saying that's only two feet, >> right? So, so the buildings, so if I the left building, building A, the elev the first floor of that building is 123.9
and the street grade at the driveway is 121. So about 2.9 ft. And then on building two, we are at 124 and the street grade there is 122. So we're elevating we are elevating up but that
delta is about 2 feet >> is maybe the pre previous number from the existing grade of the site is it below street level right now? >> Uh so it so that is perhaps the case. Uh what happens is the site there's a shelf off the shoulder of the highway and then
it drops down towards the wetlands. So you might be confusing what we're filling on site to get to these elevations versus the elevation above street grade. So that that could be the disconnect. Good good point. >> So if if I'm driving down the street,
forgive me, I don't know all the technical things. >> That's why I'm here. >> Yeah. Uh if I'm or walking down the street there, the embankment going off going up from there is only going to go up two feet. It's not going to go up five feet. >> Correct. >> Okay.
Yeah. No, the PL plank's fine. I just >> Right. But just just the native vertical difference is we're going up two feet and then we're screening with the the landscaping. >> I had actually believed up to now there'd be a five foot embankment going up from the street. >> No, I think that's >> like Tim said, I think we did discuss or
it might have been said 5t of fill or something to that effect possibly. It might be where the confusion is, >> right? Exactly. Just simplistically, the site is going down. We're going to lift up, but we're only 2 feet above Mansfield. If I'm Mansfield Avenue, that five feet could have been referenced to
the filling above the existing grade, which we do have to do filling because of the high water table out here. That is a core component to making the storm water systems work and the separations. And and Mr. Brennan can attest to that. I'm sure he reviewed it as part of his peer review. >> And that's not two feet just in the
width of the driveway. That's two feet from the road all the way to the building. Well, it's it's wherever we have structural storm water, we need to have that separation. But obviously, because we do everything storm water gravitywise, that critical depth is held and it
controls the rest of the site and the site elevates to flow to that low point. >> That's right. >> I had understood this to me going up to where it levels off and it becomes a flat parking lot, you know, so that's only two feet. That's >> Yeah, >> that's interesting because I had thought
differently. So, thanks for the clarification. >> No, happy happy to answer. We just don't want to send anybody off with a false image. >> Math to five, I can do. >> As long as it's within our fingers, we're good. >> Yeah, pretty much. >> I was going to say go up to 10 because you have the 10 fingers, but that's
about it anyways. Okay. Happy to answer anything else. >> Thank you. >> Any other members of the board for storm water or site questions? If not, we do have town council Robin Stein on and I was going to ask her a question for the
public's edification and also for the boards if she's available. >> Good evening everyone. >> Good evening. How are you >> doing? Well, good to see you all. >> I was going to ask you, this is obviously a remand. This was already
been in land court. I I would like if you could in general or maybe not specifically to this project. >> Yes. >> How a board a planning board can deny a project as we did before. What are the standards
um that a board could hang their hat on that we could actually issue a denial and uh denial be held up in land court which is a we know a very high standard. Um if you get my gist of the question to explain to people how
I guess I want to say we have a lot of perceived power the as planning board does but we actually don't have as much leeway in approving things I think as a lot of people think. Um if you are able to understand my question and explain that a little bit I'd appreciate it.
>> Sure. No, I think I I get your question and I mean obviously every case is is fact specific but generally speaking we're talking about you know special permits and site plan approval in this case. So it's two different um types of permits. Can you can everyone hear me?
>> Yep. >> Okay. Okay. So um site plan approval is generally what we call a non-discretionary review. It's a type of review that rarely if ever can be denied. It it really is like it sounds. you're approving the site like the use
of the site, how the project uses the site. Um, and so that is a review that absent extremely um significant say public health or safety reasons um you cannot deny a project that's about um mitigating for potential externalities
and and and damages and things like that, but it's it is a non-discretionary review. Um a special permit is a discretionary review. So, you have more ability to deny um a special permit. However, your review is limited to the
requirements and the provisions of the town zoning bylaw. So, um you don't have an unfettered ability to say, "Hey, we don't like, you know, we don't like this project or we don't want this use on this property and and issue a denial." You know, in order for me to be able to have any chance of defending the denial
in court, the reasons for the denial need to be grounded in your bylaw. um you know they need to be of merit and they need to be in my opinion um concerns that cannot be readily and adequately mitigated.
So if there's a pretty um easy solution to a concern, it's going to be harder to defend a denial on that basis. But it is a discretionary review. So there there is um you know some ability to deny but it is um you know it is related to the
scope of your charge in reviewing the project itself. >> Any members of the board wish to ask Robin a question as it pertains to our powers of this review while we have her on. >> I thought that was clear as hell. >> Thank you Robin. Appreciate that. We'll
talk in a little bit. I don't see anyone's hand raised on the Zoom. If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, if you raise your hand virtually, we will go to you. If not, I'll go to the public. I don't see anyone rushing up to the microphone as of yet. As we stated
before, the applicant has asked. We will be continuing this to January 6th um as they progress through the application with conservation. And in that time, we will get a little bit more clarification on the sewer for everybody, the boards
and the public's uh information. Mr. Jacobe, anything else you would like to bring up tonight? >> No, I think you've accurately stated it. We need to uh work with the conservation commission and with the sewer commissioners and be back to you in a month. >> So, would you entertain a motion?
>> Yes, sir. If motion to continue this was it January 6th. So we have a motion by Rob to continue the remain special permit 30 for zero Mansfield after January 6th. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> And just to clarify, will that be at 7:15 in the same room?
>> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Come see us. >> Uh if if you would like me to >> or by Zoom, whichever you prefer. >> Whenever town council's on, we have to be very specific when we continue to
time and date certain. I understand. So, we do have a motion in a second and I will do a roll call vote. Rob, how do you vote on the continuence? Tim, >> yes. >> I am a yes. Steve, >> yes. >> Bridget, >> yes. >> And Eric, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. That's a
continuation of special permit 30 to January 6th. >> See you then. >> Thank you everyone. Happy holidays. >> Even though that's kind of depressing. What's
>> 2026 is around the corner. >> Like to think they're happy. The next item of our agenda is why one of the reasons why town council is here tonight. The board is going to be going into executive session in a minute. Um so what we're going to have to do is clear this room and we're going to be shutting the Zoom off and kicking
everybody off of Zoom. Um that's not a board member. So Eric will stay on Zoom. Town council will stay on Zoom. Um we are going to kick everybody else off. I do have a little bit of something. You don't need you don't need to come out till after you actually correct have
your declaration motion your vote though so folks can stay to watch that >> correct I'm doing that right now >> pursuant to mass general law chapter 38 section 21 A3 to discuss strategy relating to pending litigation known as Premier Fence LLC versus town of Norton
Planning Board Massachusetts Land Court case number 24 MISC 000000730 parenthesis KTS the chair declares that discussing this matter in an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the board. A
vote regarding whether to go into executive session will be taken and votes may occur during this executive session. So at this time, Robin, should we close our public hearing, close our meeting for tonight
and adjourn to executive session? >> We should motion if we're going to return to if we're going to go to executive session and not return >> and not return to open meeting. Yes, you can you can just Yeah, you can just indicate if you're going to come back afterwards or if you're going to adjurnn from the executive session.
>> The board will not be coming back afterwards. We will adjourn this meeting from executive session. There'll be no other public hearings after we close this off right now. >> So moved. Right. >> Okay. >> We have a motion motion to go to executive session. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. Rob, >> yes. >> Tim, >> yes. >> I am a yes. Steve, >> yes. >> Bridget, >> yes. and Eric. >> Yes.