Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, August 5th meeting of the Norton Planning Board. We have all seven members here in person. We are in person here at the town hall at 72 East Main Street. You can also join us online via
the link in the agenda. Please feel free to email questions to town staff as listed in the agenda. I will call the meeting to order. First item on our agenda is planning board business and policies. I believe that's all wrapped up for now. We have one bill
to pass down. It's for a peer review. Pass that down as we go. And we do not have any minutes to approve this evening. We'll get right to our first public hearing which is site plan review 16 and special permit 24 or 260 South Washington Street. The owner is Jiovani
Luigi Edall. Applicant is David Mwell. The applicant is requesting to build a 59,087 building with 20 parking spaces. This has been continued from our June 17th hearing and July 22nd.
Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Norton Planning Board, any concerned parties in the audience, and any um parties that are watching on the uh Zoom call. Um, this is a continuation of a
public hearing for uh, unit cold storage located at 260 South Washington Street for a uh, site plan approval and also a special permit um, for a building over 10,000 square ft as uh, described better
in our May 7th narrative submitted to the planning board. This is our uh, second public hearing. We had a productive public hearing on I think it was the 16th of June. Um at that public hearing the uh owner applicant was here
Mr. John Gellaher to represent the project and the use. Um on behalf of the board if they'd like me to go through I brought the slide deck again and I can show everybody that's here and in the audience or we could pick up the discussion where we left off
and um through the chair I'll I'll ask uh what what the pleasure is. I can do a quick presentation again. >> If you could just do a real quick one, real high level look to give anyone an idea that didn't see it the first time. Please, >> no problem. So, I think uh Paul's going to pull it up. It should come up on the screen. >> What's uh what's the title of it?
>> Presentation. >> BB. This is Yeah. >> Was it a 617 was on the thumb? Is it Did you copy everything? >> I did. Or I thought I did. >> You can sort by date. Did
>> I I'll find it. >> Ex right there. Yep. >> Oh, exhibits. Okay. >> Sorry about that. >> Is it too organized, Paul? Is that what's going on? >> No, I had to make a new one. I had everything including conservation on one and I must have left it at my house or
something last week. There's just four documents on there, but one's a multi- page uh PDF. There we go. Um, so this slide here, the the site is currently vacant at 260 uh
South Washington Street. Um, it's in between the extended stay uh of America. If you want to just go to the next page, maybe we'll go back to this. This is the the uh architectural rendering what we think it's going to look like. Um, there's the site there. It's about a 7 and 1/2 acre site. In between on the
right is the extended stay hotel. On the left is a um warehouse distribution center. I think Spears is the uh tenant or and or the owner. >> Um the project is located in the industrial zone um abuing 495, two
industrial uses on either side and South Washington Street. Um if we just go one more slide, this is a picture of the land. Um as I said, it's vacant land now. There's a couple wetland systems on there that we've been working with the conservation
commission to to develop and um some isolated wetlands and some border ve bordering vegetative wetlands associated with the uh drainage out on 495. Um the uh site is zoned industrial for the use. If we just continue on one more
slide, we'll show the proposed use. This is architectural um you know uh plan view of this of the of the building. Uh building is appro going to be approximately uh I think it's about 60 about 60,000 square ft building and it's
going to be subdivided into eight individual cold storage uh rental bays. Each bay will get a couple parking spaces and two loading spaces. um accessory to the to the use of the cold
storage or temperature controlled storage is um about approximately 30 trailer storage positions around the property. Uh so 16 loading docks, 30 trailer positions and I think um we will
have I think the one update that we did make in between is we have 24 parking spaces instead of 20 on this plan here. Um, it's pretty easy change. That big shaded area at the bottom of the ADA ramps is now um or the bottom of the
stairs instead of being all hatched out has one more parking spot when the uh landowner took a look at it. Doesn't affect zoning or impervious or anything else, but we we did add one four parking spaces. So, we now have a total of 24.
Um site circulation has been um worked out already with the fire department and the fire department's already reviewed our hydrant locations. It's already been involved with the applicants uh uh building consultants talking about the fire suppression
system, the water line coming in. We've had multiple discussions with the water superintendent. We go to the water commission um next Tuesday. I think it is the 12th. Might not be Tuesday. Um but we go next week to the water
commission for their blessing. Um it's a fairly low impact use. Last time we went through uh just the findings of the traffic report. Negligible traffic for this type of use in this type of building um for the for the for the use
that it's in. Sites distances are okay. It checks all the boxes. Um the one thing that we did at the last public hearing was the uh planning board voted and to send the project out to peer review which went to um PBG Engineering
Pat Brennan who did a pretty quick turnaround um for us and took us a couple weeks to get back to him just fitting it all in. We did ultimately get back to him and then he uh with a detailed response to comments and a minor plan changes. Um he has since
approved those and which is which is good. So we're ready to move forward on that front. Um updates with other boards. Since we last met, we were able to file with conservation and also have a public hearing. That's moving along pretty well. we look like
we'll be um in position to close that public hearing on the uh I think it's the 25th. So all that's looking good for our land use permits. Um we filed with MEEPA but then we found out that we didn't have to
which was unfortunate because we did all the leg work and they said um you don't meet the traffic trip thresholds. We thought we did. We thought we needed a state permit indirect access permit. almost all of the projects that we've done that about any highways always need an indirect access permit but apparently
this one doesn't generate enough traffic. Um so we don't need MEPA. So we are looking for our local permits. Contractors excited to start working with the building department. Um which comes down to the site plan approval and
special permit would need to be issued before the building department can entertain um reviewing building documents. Um, you know, with that, I I think it's is kind of a fairly straightforward
standard site plan approval special permit for these types of things in in the town of Norton and the industrial park. And um I can entertain any questions uh at this time. We can go through some more of the slides or or um
through the chair and any uh members or or public have any questions, we're here to uh field those. I don't have any questions left over from last meeting. I had just written down. Last meeting renderings weren't in the packet, but you've provided the updated renderings.
Um, any members of the board, comments, questions, concerns? >> No questions. Yeah. >> No, >> you said you had it all set with conservation, right? >> We are headed in the right path with conservation. The only reason they didn't close the public hearing is they weren't going to have a meeting. They
the way conservation works once you close a hearing they have to issue issue a signed decision within 21 days and they weren't gonna have a meeting within 21 days. >> Yeah. >> I can confirm that. John John Thomas said that. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. >> And John Thomas, as you said, Paul is fine with everything. He said there's no
>> Yeah. John John, who's our conservation director, uh he said this was fine. >> Yep. We're heading toward an approval for conservation. We just hate closing >> hearings in case the there's a change in the conservation or anything. If we're in the right direction, we're in the right direction.
>> We're we we think that we have the plan set prepared that will get approved. >> Wonderful. >> Submitted to the conservation and the planning board. >> There's no other questions from the board. I'll go to members of the public. Anyone here in person here to comment about this project? I don't see any of
our three people in public jumping up to the podium. Anyone online with the hand raised? I don't see anyone with a hand raised. Paul, >> the car out there just turned its headlights on. >> Doesn't look at Helen. >> Do I have no public questions? We have no more questions from the board. If
anyone's comfortable closing the public hearing for SPR 16 and SP 24, we can close the public hearing. The only thing I want to bring up is conditions. Um, I did have written down from the last meeting, trucks taking a left turn only out of
the parking lot would be a condition you're fine with. >> Take >> towards the industrial park in 495 or left. >> Take a the trucks would take a left >> to go to the highway. >> To go to the highway, >> of course. Yeah. >> I just wanted to make sure it was right.
>> Yes. >> 495 is south. Yes. That >> we want every truck to go up through the residential area. >> Well, there'll be a long way regardless. >> Yeah. So we can have some type of signage saying such trucks left-hand turn only. >> No problem. >> And then maybe since do we have the updated plan with the new parking spots
in the packet that's in there? >> I think someone out there is signaling they do want to talk. >> Could you come up to the podium and give you >> Yes. >> That's the only way. I will I can't believe I'm >> so
>> just come up to the state your name and >> yeah name and address when you get to the podium >> 25 Newton nav um so I was really pleased to hear you say left turn only because the only thing that I was thinking of all of this outside of the amount of u trucks that are going to be coming in
and out are where are they going to go when they come in and out and what's prompting me to stand here now is so they take that left They end up, we all know that intersection. So, is that Norton or is that Taton? >> If they go left, they go into the
industrial park. >> But is that where they were going to come out? Is that Norton or Taton? Right. >> They're still in Norton, but they'll be into Taton pretty quickly. >> But it would be So, >> when you get to the old Holiday Inn, that's already in Taton. >> Oh, okay. All right. So I think that the
the concern that that that I would have there is that is I don't know if any have ever tried to cross that. It's it's really a very difficult um two lanes to cross. And if you sir
have never done that, I would encourage you to at peak time when it's really fun. Uh because you got two lanes of traffic coming through the light and you know and I see people sitting there and and I see sometimes trucks sitting there and um and now this is just going to be
additional traffic sitting there. So, I guess where I'm going with this is what would we have to do to because really uh what I I hate to encourage more traffic lights in the world because they're such a nuisance, but that area if if not that
six what what do you got? 30 bays going in there. Is that what you said? >> Eight. >> Eight. >> Eight units. >> Eight units. Eight units. So, that >> if you have any questions, if you could just ask the board and then I'll ask him to >> Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I've never done this. Okay. So, that's my concern. I guess that's really all I have to say is
that the really I get the I get the whole left turn thing. That makes sense. And as long as they read the sign, but then once they get there, um that's um maybe that's Taton's problem. I I don't know. >> There was a traffic study done, you know,
>> and reviewed. Um it analyzes all the intersections in the area and the traffic that the >> Yeah. >> Um that was all taken care of. It >> all a thumbs up. >> All a thumbs up. And >> Oh, well that's amazing. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, if you'd like to respond to anything about the traffic and then
>> thank you for your uh concerns and we kind we kind of get it when you see any new development come in, you have concerns about existing intersections. So, the way that the traffic uh studies work is they look at the target site right at the front door,
make sure it's safe enough, and then they also study all of the major intersections on the way to the highway. And the interesting thing about this particular building is with cold storage there isn't quite as many trips as other warehouse juices.
Usually once a day the trucks you know the trailers may sit there for a while in the bay >> and sometimes the bigger ones will probably be we can't we don't know we don't know what the uses are going to be. It's cold storage any anything from really cold ice cream to flowers that
doesn't need to be so cold temperature controlled storage. So there's not many people in the buildings. Um and the um what we think most of the target users will be would be food users or cold cold storage users that rent in larger
buildings and other people go get their stuff for them and they bring them out. They send their delivery trucks. Could be beverages, could be food, could be could be anything. But what we think is the the trailer positions probably won't be that much trail tractor trailer traffic because the buildings aren't that big and there won't be that much
turnover, but that would be stuff coming in less frequently and maybe vans and cars delivering stuff smaller smaller uh box trucks type type of thing. And the traffic report concluded that with respect to the overall traffic flow on
South Washington Street, there would be a negligible number of cars entering on the daily basis and in the in the peak hours. And they assign a level of service to each intersection >> in the area of study. And then what the
trigger is is you can't your your volume of traffic can't make the level can't degrade the level of service. And there was no determinations that any of the level of services would be degraded. There's really not that much traffic is for this uh 60,000t building. I hope
that helps you a little bit. >> Could you could you just come back up so we can get you please? >> We'll get your steps in tonight. >> Just wait till you get to the microphone just so everyone >> again. No, you're okay. You're good. >> Okay. >> So, you mentioned box chucks.
>> If you could just ask us the questions and then I'll ask >> That's right. I'm sorry. Okay. So, he mentioned box trucks. >> Um, now, um, I don't know. I I I spent 30 years in the warehouse business. I So, I know a little bit about little bit. >> So, everything around here now is it's jumped from used to be 40 foot 20
footers, two 20 footers, 40footers. Now, we got 50 foot 53 footers on our roads. And so is is this facility are you gearing towards your box truck in and out or the 53-footer in and out? And I don't care if it's two or eight,
whatever it is. It's this big unit snaking through that intersection. Um and it has nothing to do with I'm not opposed to development. That's not why I'm speaking out. It's just that these this cold storage business is seem to just take off in this area. And it seems
that everybody and their mother wants to build a culter because there's money in it. It's seasonal. All right. In the summer it peaks because all the food that's going down the cape going here, going there. It's all, you know, that's kind of funneling out of this area. So, um, so I I guess that's my question is
was box truck is that just a potential customer of these units? We don't know who the customer is because we haven't built it yet and we don't know who our customer is. >> Correct. or are we anticipating what everything else is? Um, the 53-footer
that has become the norm of the world today. >> I believe they have stated everything from a 53 all the way down to a box truck or van delivery could be anything. Could be anything. >> Yeah. And there's no way you can't really say, "Oh, you can only have this and not that." >> It's it's set up for any It's set up to
handle Go ahead, Tim. Yeah, I was going to say and we also do um generally with these projects, we show them to the fire department to make sure any of their apparatus can also get around the site. >> And those are all important things, but I'm just like my my main thing right now is just cuz I got started on it is just
like the traffic and these huge trucks on small roads and now more small trucks trying to make it through what I view as I can't believe a traffic study passed in that area uh for for that corner. But that's not not my job, man. Okay, I'm
just >> Thank you for speaking. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that you answered the the the question the best property. But there is there is nothing rented with the the uh applicant
doesn't know exactly who's going to rent um one of the bays or multiple of the bays. But um the gentleman has a lot of experience in the industry and he's one of the ones that's been been building the the big cold storage all over the country actually all over the world and
is an expert in that. He finds that this will be a niche market for a lot of the smaller food distributors and niche um distributors that currently might have some manufacturing, but they're paying for cold storage in a bigger building. And they feel that maybe they can
control their own a little bit better at a better cost point in this particular use. And what the anticipated the buildings are not the units are not that big. So you probably won't have multiple WB67s leaving all the time with product. You're going to have those larger trucks
will be bringing stuff in and then it'll be sit in the warehouse and probably get distributed on smaller trucks. I think that's what we're trying to articulate and nobody knows exactly um what's going to happen. We do the traffic reports and those are based on you know statistics of studies of all of
the types of uses around the country and coal storage is one of them and um that's it you know we don't feel that uh to answer your question about W the largest trucks that the facility is designed to accommodate the largest
trucks over the road because people can't dictate what's going to bring you your stuff. Um so we set them up for that and it is set up for that. It's al, as the chair said, it's also set up so that the um fire department can get all their apparatus in and out on
>> He's the chair. I'm not the chair. >> Anybody else from the public online? Anyone else have a question or comment, concern back to the board? Anybody? >> In my in my opinion, it's the the right area for this use. It's I'm expecting
less traffic than other allowed by right uses overall. I I don't I don't think it's going to be a problem. It's the industrial zone. It's what it's zoned for. >> If there's no other comments, the uh chair, I'd be looking for a motion to close the public hearings one at a time
for >> sure. Yes. C can I ask there was one question about conditions and >> the applicant at the last meeting um talked about the hours of operation starting at 6:00 a.m. >> Mhm. >> Just want to make sure cuz that we get
that resolved. >> I I think the wish of the applicant was to not be rest not be restrictive >> due to the type type of uses people start much earlier than that and it could be in the middle of the night. Food is a 24-hour business. >> 24-hour business.
>> Yeah. >> I have no problem with that as long as we can keep them coming coming and going from that direction from the highway. Um >> I would agree. >> I think it's it's unreasonable to expect that type of business to start at 6:00 a.m.
>> I I don't have any problems with the time restrictions. I it shouldn't be there. >> And we talked about screening from the adjacent properties at the last meeting anyway, I think. >> Correct. He's got a pretty robust screening plan and some already existing vegetation that's going to remain.
>> So, our only condition is the uh is conservation, right? >> Um >> and the trucks. >> Yep. A sign saying left turn only our standard conditions and uh sign off with a order conditions from conservation. >> I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing. >> Seconded. >> Is this for the site plan review or the special permit? We'll do one at a time. >> Site plan review. >> Start with that. >> We have a motion from Rob to close site plan review 16. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Second by Ken. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Abstain. Public hearing for S site plan review 16. We have a motion to close special permit 24. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Second. All in favor? >> I I >> The public hearings are closed. What's the pleasure of the board? We can do them one at a time, please. Either the site plan or the special permit first, unless there's any other comments. >> The chair be looking for a motion to
approve site plan review 16. >> So moved. >> So moved. Yeah. >> We have a motion. Motion from Steve, second from Rob. All in favor? I do you hold just just to confirm we're approving that with conditions
>> with with standard conditions and the >> in the left turn >> left turn only out of parking lot and the updated order conditions from conservation. >> So moved. >> We have a motion from Steve and a second from Rob. All in favor? I
>> I opposed. Abstain. >> Sorry to be annoying. >> Nope. >> That's why you're there to keep me on track. Last motion we've looking for is to approve special permit 24. And Paul, this is for a building over 10,000 square foot and parking spaces.
>> Yes. >> Motion to approve it. >> Second. >> We have a motion from Rob and a second from Steve. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I opposed. Abstain. That should do it.
Thank you very much. Good luck. >> Next item on our agenda is a discussion about the multifamily mixeduse overlay district design standards with Serpent. I believe Rob Cabraw's here from Serpid to walk us through our design.
And while Rob's coming up, I just want to restate that, you know, we had approved or I applied for this grant um over a year ago. Um as we were working through u the zoning district, I thought this would be a good tool to have. Um
having good design standards is a is a I think a positive a lot of benefits to the town. Uh we did get the grant and uh we waited on moving forward with this until we actually had the overlay district approved. And you know at this point um the overlay district uh has
been approved by the executive office of housing and livable communities. We should be hearing uh by the from the attorney general within the next couple of weeks. They have a 90-day deadline which they oftent times grant themselves an extension but um hopefully we will be
found in compliance there. And if we could ask anyone on Zoom if you could please mute your mics until you are ready to speak. Marilyn if you could press mute if you could please. Brian, can you do it from yours? Is the No,
>> no, I don't I'm not a co-host, so only Charlene could. >> Well, it's not too bad. We'll keep going. >> Sure. Well, thank you for having me. For for those of you who don't know me, I'm Robert Cabraw from Sered. Uh we're the regional planner for Norton and you
know, several of the communities around here. Uh so uh yeah, we're going to talk tonight about what Paul uh I think introduced very well. Thank you Paul. Um so what we're going to cover about these design standards and guidelines for uh Norton's
multif family mixeduse overlay district. Uh we we'll cover um what are kind of design standards and guidelines? Why do we do them? Uh what are the difference? You know we have two words there standards and guidelines. What's the difference between the two of them? how do they interface with uh the MBTA
multif family district and the rules associated with that. Uh we'll cover a few example projects uh that we've done throughout the region at SERD and uh we'll provide like a timeline for this work what it'll look like between now and June 30th. So um that can I jump to the first slide which is that first
question you know what are design guidelines. So they're, you know, visually oriented document. They cover things like building materials, uh, building shape, public realm, um, you know, a lot of the things that we cover in site plan review, and they're really a tool to guide that site plan review
process. They're embedded in the planning board's rules and regs. Um, you know, there's a little blip on the bottom about town meeting. I I think that's something usually you want to avoid anything that would encroach into the town meeting territory. We usually if we stick to the site plan review process and the planning board rules and
regs. It's really uh a document for for this board to use and sort of reflects the priorities of the town but really through this venue. >> Right. It's similar to subdivision regulations which isn't part of the the bylaw. It's a separate document.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Um the next slide is uh kind of the why really uh I think that's pretty hopefully pretty straightforward. it reflects the priorities of the town and and gives the plane board greater control to uh make sure that's reflected at the development scale. You know, when
we think of the district that's or or a zoning bylaw, that's at kind of if we think telescopically that's zoomed out a little bit as we zoom in project to project. It kind of gives that greater control of of exercising the wishes of the town when a development project comes across uh this board.
And then to the next one, what is the difference? Uh I would say the difference you know when you see standards you typically see words that are sort of like need required must do this they tend to relate to dimensions. Uh it gets a little fuzzy sometimes those dimensions are defined through the
bylaw process itself and we can explain those you know or ways to achieve those dimensions through uh the standards. for example, something like a setback that's required or frontage. We can show assemblages or ways to achieve that, you know, with high quality design, even
though that's already determined. And then sometimes we can have standards on things that maybe weren't covered in the bylaw. Maybe something related to signage or something like that that's not super gerine to what we were thinking about at the time that the town meeting. Um, it could be in there actually. I don't even know. Uh, there were signage standards in there, but
>> we had design st I mean we have setbacks, height, >> all of that. So that's it's in the bylaw, >> right? So this would be things in addition to it, but it's >> these should not be Rob will go into this, but these aren't shouldn't be viewed as
>> regulations that would be overly restrictive to a project. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. >> Which the state wouldn't view too kindly. >> Yeah. We're not really superseding what was already decided at town meeting. It sort of is nested within what's already been decided. Um, oh, and
then guidelines are really kind of on the opposite side of that, but they work together to achieve what we consider good design. So, uh, the guidelines you see things like should or ought to, you know, are encouraged and and they really tend to be a little more qualitative in nature. Um, so those again, that's kind
of just the main difference. I think the document will likely contain a mixture of both. Um, and it's kind of Paul's point cued this up really well. So, um, yeah, sorry, next the next slide here. uh how does this kind of relate to what
was passed at town meeting? Again, that kind of that terminology nested within it. It shouldn't really undermine sort of the core tenants of what was voted on. We we also kind of similarly want to avoid anything like Paul said that could be interpreted as overly restrictive of
multif family housing by right. But at the same time, if someone's got a proposal that meets the spirit and the regulations of the district, this is that tool to sort of make sure it's the best version of that that it can be. Um, so yeah, I could stop here uh if anyone
has any questions or I could just kind of jump into some examples on whatever works for you guys. Unrelated question. Can we figure out who can mute the person on Zoom if they cannot mute themselves? Who's the host? >> That would be Charlene. The >> Okay.
>> Person that can isn't here. >> Okay. >> Cuz I feel you on that. >> I'll try. If I'm not talking loud enough, let me know, too. >> It's not you. >> It isn't you. >> Paul's going to reach out to Charlene, so don't worry. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Sorry.
Um so yeah, just a couple example projects we've done in the region. Um this first one is for the Slates Fairy Crossing District. This is one that uh is going to go before town meeting in Somerset and we did these design guidelines as an accompaniment to that bylaw. And this is just a page from them showing public realm. And so we, you
know, we sketched out some ideas here uh that really show a lot of the conditions that the town really wanted to see. You look at the public, the the amenities there, the the storefront, you know, the way that would the town would like those to look, things like balconies on the second floor that really contribute to
that kind of uh enhanced sense of place uh that the town is looking for. And on the next slide kind of gets into where did the sketch come from might be a question is we did a lot of public outreach. Uh we showed a lot of pictures and stuff to people from neighboring communities and whatnot. And um these actually were some of the pictures that
people like the best pertaining to this topic. So we take the pictures, we kind of interpret what they mean as sort of a set of values that the town has and then we show again sort of an assemblage of them in a in a sketch. So that's sort of the process I guess in a way of how we how we produce something like this. And
then uh the next one is uh the new New Bedford TOD. This is a a district that was passed uh and these also these guidelines came alongside it. uh this particular again this kind of shows I guess every one of these districts has sort of local circumstance
that you want to cover and it to have that fidelity is a really useful aspect of these as well. So in this case it was some of the buildings were a little taller that could be allowed than what was in the neighborhood nearby and that picture on the right shows what we call kind of a step down and then the diagram on the left shows how to achieve that
step down. So, you know, if you if you just had that whole thing you imagine as sort of a rectangle, uh it would be much more imposing where so as again under those conditions that are outlined in the zoning, it's a way to make um sort of a more graceful uh step down to to the neighborhood adjacent to it. So,
show showing ways to adjust and and manipulate the massing and encourage that kind of stuff. And again, it's sort of this ideally this this agreed upon set of of ways to do it that that the board can can speak to when development applications come through. And I got one one more here. Um this is another bylaw
that is um in the process of being voted on in Rainham. Um so this is Route 138. Uh and again little little smaller buildings here, two stories. And it shows different ways to assemble them. Again, the massing of the building to project certain parts of it. Uh go back a little
further and and make one building maybe look like multiple smaller buildings. New England character was was a big uh thing that that the town liked there. So, showing those pitched roof lines and on the last slide here or second to last I guess maybe um these sections here
illustrates sort of they had a large setback. Anyone who's driven on 138 there at the traffic's a little fast and they're thinking about it as sort of a shopping type situation. Uh that 30 foot setback could be big but also we they chose it because of the the traffic speeds that are adjacent to it. So, so
thinking about how to scale that larger public realm with amenities, trees, and different types of paving and, you know, uh, planting situations that that could make it feel really comfortable at the pedestrian scale, but also not like you're too close to the cars
that are going by kind of quick. So, again, these are kind of the conditions that we can get a little bit local and with and looking at these guidelines. And then, uh, just this last page here is just, uh, kind of a timeline of how we would get to this point on this project. I guess kind of simply we would look at the best practices local kind of
regional commonwealth beyond um turn them into a kind of public outreach take take those examples present them to people present them to this board present them to the public through surveys and whatnot and then refine those into a set of ideas that hopefully everybody agrees on and you know that would all take place between uh June
2026 and now kind of look at the last uh bullet there the secure legal review we've from the grant funding we've set aside a little bit of that to have that legal review because of the aspect of this that relates to 3A. So, we just don't want to open a can of worms if we
think, you know, we could be imposing too many restrictions or not. It's good to just know before we adopt it. So, we want to put as many safeguards in there to make to give us all the confidence we can with that. And, um, with that, I just want to thank everyone for their time and if anybody has any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
>> Is this deck going to be available to us? >> Yeah. Yeah. Cool, >> Steve. No. >> Yeah. No. Um, everything you said is fantastic and I I'm happy to have this project coming up. I look forward to getting involved with it.
>> Awesome. Thank you. >> That's cool. >> So, um, I assume you've already talked with Paul and you know which sites are part of our overlay. Now, are you looking for anything from the board tonight in terms of our thoughts or do
you want to save that for the rest of the community outreach and everything like that? I'm not sure if I think I'm not sure if I'm prepared to give that many coherent thoughts, but >> No, no, this was just a an >> an intro. >> Well, yeah. And I can say I think the
overarching goal is to always be transparent when we do stuff like this. We know that >> some of this stuff can be a little bit of a lightning rod. I'm familiar with it. You know, you've seen me in Norton talking about it. I've been in other towns. So, we always want to be out there letting everyone know what we're doing, whether it's on the board or elsewhere. Um, if if the board has
thoughts, of course, they can guide the process. So, I'm I'm totally open-minded on whatever works for you. >> Yeah. I think >> and Rob was behind the scenes working with us during round two. >> I think my only thought is that the areas that are in our overlay, they're
both very different. Yes. >> So I don't Is it weird to say we gonna want two different standards or is that >> No, I mean you you you want to create design standards that meet the context of an area. It's not going to be a
one-sizefits-all. >> Yeah. They're totally different in terms of the environment that they're in. >> The road's different. They the built environment's different. The layout's different. I kind of get what you said where like on one of the slides he not he they sectioned out one neighborhood specifically so we could potentially
section out the two spots. >> Yeah. >> If >> Yeah. Okay. >> That was the one question I was actually expecting. So yeah, I don't we can we can do it however works best for the board and folks in town. I expect that yeah that they would >> without putting my fingerprint on it too much. It it would make logical sense to
have different stipulations for different areas. What are the things that would What's within this? I mean, like I assume like architecture, the public realm, sidewalks, all that kind of stuff. What What are we not allowed to touch? >> The the big picture things that I I
think, you know, it's probably going to be a little obvious, but I would start with um it's not a revisiting of like, you know, if someone's on on on Zoom maybe worried, it's like or thinking this is an avenue one way or the other. I don't think this is a venue to revisit like a unit count or the the height of a
building or any of those kind of foundational elements that the town has already decided at town meeting. Yeah. So, if we think of it uh like we're not changing the sport we're playing, we're like setting the rules on the baseball diamond or something. I kind of lost my metaphor, but you know what I mean. >> Aesthetics. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Functionality. It's the best ways to to achieve and and have some control over uh you you know what's already been decided because there's a lot of different ways to to arrange one or multiple buildings of a certain height or or a certain unit count or something like that. So So yeah, aesthetics and
and form and things like that. >> The box is drawn, we're staying within it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Making it a better development. >> A prettier box. So just like with if if the zoning bylaw update passes, you made changes
>> when >> when >> thank you >> when sorry but you made changes to the design guidelines to design standards in village commercial it's the same we would be covering the same elements that we're covering there. So uh uh uh how
the how the building interacts with the street uh street uh yeah you know street furniture uh landscaping vegetation uh we can be more assertive on things like bicycle parking
you know all that. Yeah, I would say on the if it gets to a gray area, you know, we've already passed this district in town and we can talk to EOHLC and be like, are we going too far? You know, because I think there is an element of this that that you rightly uh bring up.
It's not like we have tons of years of precedent to do this kind of thing. I don't know how many communities are really exploring these design guidelines yet. Of course, EOHLC approved the grant. So, they are supportive of the general effort, but if if it gets, you know, to an area where we're not totally sure, we're happy to have that dialogue
with with the Commonwealth as well to make sure we're not running a foul of anything. I think we can cover our bases, but simple is better generally. >> It doesn't have to be like a 100page document. Maybe I don't know how far it has to go. I'll say quick anyone on the Zoom
meeting, we can't accept comments in the chat, but I will go to everyone on Zoom that wishes to speak in a minute. >> Paul, I guess my only other question is what's our time frame moving forward? What's that look like for public outreach, public meetings? What do we have for a schedule?
>> Well, I haven't worked that up yet, but we have to expend the grant by June of 26. So Rob's got the timeline. So we'll have to work on >> So we'll develop a timeline and Yeah. public hearings, meetings, etc. Right.
>> He had the timeline on one of the slides basically. >> He does. Yeah. Right. >> So you know, because we're not taking it to town meeting, we're we have a lot more freedom when we have events and not um have to meet time frames like we have to do with the zoning bylaw to get on
town meetings schedule. Some common tools we could use within that timeline to add a little fidelity to that is probably like a survey, probably host a workshop where anyone could show up and I I expect to be coming back here as a public venue to to talk to you and anyone else who might
want to make public comments on it throughout. And so we probably would take that first third of you know the schedule length to develop these uh best practices and we can continually talk to Paul and when when when everyone thinks it's appropriate come here and present those and be again very transparent
about the process of turning those best practices into what turns into public outreach and then >> I think we'll again be transparent about describing how those public outreach results what it means to us and and how it can transform into a set of of rules
uh and guidelines. >> We're we're finding it's easy to invite people to turn out, but to get them to actually do it is proving to be a challenge. >> I can understand that. Yeah. >> Yeah. And we'll, you know, one, you know, we'd certainly want to invite the
property owners within the MMO district. >> Yeah. >> Which we did for the reasoning and nobody none of them showed up. So, but that doesn't mean we won't stop. We'll continue and probably do some, you know,
we'll do some more uh outreach in the field types of things like pizza events or coffee events that did draw a few people out. So, um >> I remember those. >> You went to them, Peter, and contributed. So, um when pizza time that
attracts more people, >> right? Alberto's was had we had a few there. So, um, but you I think that's that's on me to to do that, but we'll work on on getting all of that together. We're we're very early in the process.
>> Any other questions from the board? If not, I'll take a question or two from the Zoom. I think there's at least one. >> No questions for me. >> Thank you. >> Hold. I don't see a hand raised, but Mr. Seagull, did you want to uh make a comment or a question?
Yeah. >> Could you just do your Could you just do your name and address for the record, please? Or So >> it does. >> Yeah. >> So chair if I can. Absolutely. >> So um >> so great question Orin. Um, so as you
know, the planning board does have regulatory authority to create standards. I wouldn't put it as we're putting these standards outside of I of the There are You're right. There are uh standards within the zoning district
itself. I think of these as just supplemental to them and supportive of them. Um because again, we're not going to get into things like setback, you know, any of the setback requirements. This is just what goes on within that envelope. >> Mhm.
>> And and so, you know, we do have the planning board does have the ability to create create its own regulations. I mean, the only time it's ever done it is with the the subdivision rags, but you can do it here. >> So, just does that answer your question?
We're not touching anything in the new zoning bylaw. >> I think he he means the recotification, I believe. >> Yeah. >> Keep it separate. just So Paul, so he's basically saying we should put a footnote in somewhere in
the >> in the recode >> in the recode directing to this regulation while we're >> um I'm looking I think we did that. Um, I think we put something in in anticipation of this.
Um, of course I'll not find it right away, but uh, >> that's okay. I'll waste some time that needs to be covered. If you find it, great. Otherwise, we need to add it. And Paul, your point is that because the
planning board's responsibilities are governed somewhat by the state, what we can do is goes back to that as opposed to >> Yeah. >> by a a limited application. Whereas, um, as Zoran's pointing out, things like what we're doing for parking generally,
that's applicable townwide, but where you have more explicit standards like with village center core and and in a in a little while, village commercial, those standards are just tied to those specific properties. And that's what we're doing. The same thing here.
So it really mirrors although those were in the bylaw. They you know really I guess they didn't need to be but we can do it we can do it outside of that now but I'll look to see I thought we had put something in here in anticipation of
that but I I'll check and get back to you on that >> and if not make a note to make a note. >> Yeah. So in the end would this exist as a separate document to be referred to or would it be embedded within >> separate document >> separate document.
>> So then to go on further than that would we want to then move the other design and guideline criteras into a document that is a separate referable document to work on instead of being in the main code. >> That's something we could do down the
road. But I mean this is the grant was specifically tied to um MOD >> just >> thinking it all together you know >> um is it already yeah one thing we could do to relate to some of the points that are brought up is I I personally don't
see any reason why we couldn't if there are universal >> standards that apply to this district it's helpful just to illustrate them or illustrate preferred ways to comply with them sometimes and that may extend beyond this particular district uh into other situations. So there could be some value there as well.
>> Go ahead or Yeah. >> So, we're adopting what he's Orin's advice. We're just discussing how to go about it. Yeah. >> Correct. >> Anybody else on the board any questions, comments? >> No. >> No.
>> Anyone else on the Zoom call have any comments? >> Would you like to come up again and practice? Yes. >> Very good. >> So, is there anything else you want from
us tonight or we'll look forward to >> proceeding in the future? >> Yeah. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. See you guys. >> You don't have to resolve that tonight. >> No, I was just looking. Last item on our agenda is our zoning
bylaw update. And I believe we're going to go through the items that we have noted for further review from our last several meetings that we've talked through the whole bylaw at this point again. >> And I'm pulling that up right now.
And of course, this is not doing what I want it to do. Looking for the 805 revised. Um 27 hours plus. >> Hold on. >> Excuse me.
I've just set this up so that I >> go program 723 by the red line. >> No, I have it open. It's just not Okay, here we go. So, um, this is your fourth meeting on round two, and I had sent you
out an email identifying those areas that are still left to be resolved, and I just thought we could go through it. Um, and hopefully at the end of the day, you you all will have a, you know, have resolution on this. Um, I should point
out too that as August 28th is the day the warrant articles are due, you don't have to transmit this tonight if you don't want to. You do have a meeting on the 26 where you would have to in order to get it on the on the warrant. So, we spent
time just going through and getting these things resolved. And >> I will not be here on the 26th. >> Is it Steve? This is just Sorry, Paul. This is just placeholder language, right? >> Just placeholder language. Isn't there placeholder language? We want to have a zoning update article on the warrant.
>> You tell me to do it. >> I mean, that's that's all we need for placeholder language, right? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yes. >> Do I think we'll be fine setting that up tonight? >> Do you want a formal vote or how would you like to >> You do need to formally vote for it, but >> you want to do it after.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, I would. So, let me pull this up and we're going to start uh in an area we have spent a lot of time on. uh but there's just some unresolved things and that is the use table. So
um just want to start first there uh here uh under multif family dwelling five or more units that we just had a comment um Steve my comment was you had a concern about not allowing multif family five or
more units in village commercial. Is that did I c did I capture that? >> Yes that is correct. Okay. Um yeah I I my recommendation was we don't allow the five or more units in village commercial
and my recommendation also was to remove the four unit multifamilies from residential zone completely. That's what I brought up at the last meeting. So multif family dwellings up to four
units under R40 you want no >> I mean that that was what I was saying the no multifamilies within the residential zone >> so that and that would turn to ends right >> so there would be
>> nowhere for five or more multif family >> our multif family district our multif family by rightight district is the five or more unit district >> just the I can't believe the ModOD, right? >> I hate the acronym.
>> Yeah. Yeah, it's MBTA no matter what, but >> but that I mean that it would that is effectively our multif family by right tool. >> So, and your perspective is basically we added a bunch of multif family. We should take it away from other places.
Yes, roughly or more strictly regulated unless we want to in the future 10 years down the road zone more multif family area but that's you know not this pursuit. >> I wouldn't mind making that fill up first. >> I think the best way to go through these
is one by one. If we have no further discussion on it, we'll just do a straw poll v straw poll vote and move forward. >> I agree. Yeah, >> sounds good. >> We don't have to argue much more after tonight. Um, so I guess our knock on wood,
our first uh item to vote on multif family dwelling units up to four units. As a board, do we want to change our R40 district from a special permit for the planning board to a not allowed? Um, we can go down the line one at a
time and make it easy. Rob, change it as a yes. Leave it as a planning board is a no. >> I'll go with a no. Let's see what Steve's doing. >> So, you want to change it or don't want to change it? >> I'd like change it to a no.
>> Change it to a no. Tim, >> up to four units like a quadplex. I would leave it alone. Personally, >> I'm leaning towards leaving it alone here. >> Yeah. No change on that.
No change for me either, >> Steve and Ken. >> Yeah, no change. >> I vote to change it, but it doesn't matter. >> 52. We'll leave it as planning board special permit. Same vote. Multif family dwelling, five or more units. Right now,
we have a planning board special permit and village commercial. Do we want to leave it alone as a special permit or do we want to change it to a no across the board so there'll be no multif family dwelling of five or more units in any zone except for the MOD?
>> Yeah. >> Start again with Rob. >> No. >> Can I before we vote on this one, can we um Paul, would you hit me if I asked you to pull up the zoning map just to highlight where the village
commercial is? I know we have sections near the center and going up 140 and then our zoning map doesn't necessarily follow any recognizable pattern. So
>> it's all over the page to open it. >> No, I'm I'm right there. Okay. seeing a lot of maps these days that don't seem to follow patterns. >> Oh, there was a bunch of stuff here when they made the map. So, they just tried
to match what was there and that's why it doesn't make sense. I didn't mean to hear Norton, >> but you'll see Village Commercial is largely it's the pink and it's largely running along, let me zoom in a little bit, but it's largely running along 123
and 140. There's some uh you'll see some down near in Barrowsville. You'll see some up on 123 uh East Main Street area. And that pink on 140 north that starts
right at reservoir, right? Basically where we've looked at those other >> properties. >> Somebody once wanted to change that whole thing all the way across to Village Commercial we see now. >> So it's largely centering around our two main roads with a couple of exceptions.
Barrowsville and then you also have the old Reed and Barton site. >> Uh to add to this uh along with the following suggestion that will come up in the bylaw uh regarding multiple residential units in the village commercial. Um
I suggested Apollo that we have an update that we allow multiple residential units if they're top of the shop so that we're getting commercial uses out of it. So on a village commercial lot, we could have maybe three or four or multiple multifamilies that are only
four units each. >> Did you say multiple buildings or >> multiple buildings that are multif family each? >> Okay. >> So if they wanted to put 20 units, they'd have to do it over multiple buildings.
>> Have to or could. >> The way I worded it would be like you're dangling the carrot. they would have to put it as top of the shop >> and and mixed you or mixed >> or mixed use development like with a commercial component. >> So let's look at that again when we have it. Right.
>> Yeah, that's coming up. It's just a little bit. Well, I say a little bit but hopefully a little bit. >> So, >> okay. Thank you. Thank you for indulging me, Paul. >> Yeah. So, we suspended our straw pole there till we see the rest, right? >> We'll keep
>> we can go back to it. I just wanted to see the map as we looked at where village commercial was. Our 40 I felt okay about, but >> multif family dwelling five or more units is what we're considering. >> Right now, we have special permit in the village commercial. Do we want to leave
it as a special permit or do we want to put a no in and not allow it is our vote. So, Rob. >> Okay. So, the top of the shop does not come into this at all, right? >> It's a different top. That's a different use. >> Okay. I'm going to say no then.
>> So, you want to >> you want to make it a no. >> Yeah. To just put up a five or more unit thing in a village commercial. No. >> By it, you know, by itself. >> Yeah. Tim, I'll go along with that as well. It's village commercial. So, let's
get some commercial. >> Yeah. >> Where I'm going here. >> I feel the same way. I'm gonna change this to a no. >> I agree. Well, >> Ken's a no. >> Yeah. Change it to a no. >> No. >> Steve's a no. Bridget's a no. Eric,
>> I wouldn't change it, but Okay. >> Okay. >> The nose win. >> But now we're going to be talking a little bit about where we can put a carrot there >> in a little bit. Yeah. >> Yeah. So the next one, >> the note behind us on that
>> was a I believe this was >> directed at cluster developments, >> but Steve, I could use your help and I'm looking back at this and I'm like we were talking about cluster developments and you said no in the residential areas. Did I get that right? >> This has to be attacked with a future
project. This had uh my suggestion was that we make an overlay district specific for cluster developments so that we can place where around town we'd like to put cluster developments with a smaller lot size specifically instead of relying on the half the lot size based
on the required lot size where it is >> it. >> So we're going to punt. >> Yeah, we'll skip this one for now. Just got to stay where it is. >> Okay, >> moving on. >> Okay. Um, this next one here, not really
a dis I'm only bringing this up here regarding senior housing and senior housing facility. This gets to the point Orin made the last meeting. Um, I think the major fix was, you'll see later in definitions, I moved senior housing out from under senior housing facility and
made it its own category. So, it's not applicable to section 8.2 or 8.3 anymore. So, but it was always separated in the use table here. >> Um, next,
>> does the does the note for section 8.3 still feel like it refers to both items in the row? >> No, because it's just uh tied to definitions, the definition of senior housing facility. So, I don't believe it will cover senior
housing anymore. >> Right. But the the the referencing C section 8.3 seems to would seem to apply for both potentially. >> Well, but but when you look at senior housing facility in 8.3,
uh there's no specific mention of senior housing as a use, >> right? >> I can see >> a different use now. So, >> um, do you want to go to 8.3 so we can look at it quick?
>> No, I'm just trying to see if um cuz you're looking for 8.3 is only referring to senior housing facility. Correct. >> Correct. And all the different uses that fall under it.
Um, you're thinking of a different way to >> I almost want to make it two different rows and have only the facility refer to section 8.3. >> It's easy enough to do >> that. I agree with that because the main problem that I have been saying the
whole time is that the concept of a senior housing facility which is a medical care facility is already covered by the next line line down long-term care facilities, hospitals, nursing and convolescent homes. >> It's already there.
The definition is fine, but on another line isn't necessary and it's not necessary to tie it in with a senior housing, which is just housing for 55 and older community. >> So, >> I know it gets wordy, but can you have 14 that specify that includes a facil
senior h senior facility along with longter? >> I mean, that would be where it would go, but I again, it's already implied a long-term care facility includes seniors >> in my opinion. Yeah, it needs no wording change, but if we wanted to see the word senior,
>> like the senior housing facility in the definition is good. And if you want to add that to the next line, it seems fine. It is wordy, but in my mind, that's just already covered. >> Paul, are you picking up what is being suggested? >> Um, I'm not. >> So, okay.
>> So, cut. So in row 13, highlight everything from or through the section 8.3 reference and copy it after convolescent homes in the row below it.
You >> mean cut and paste, right? >> Yeah, cut and paste. So row 13 is senior housing >> then >> end stop and then senior housing facility is covered in the bulleted list for 14. Is that >> that makes sense in my mind?
>> That makes much more sense to me. >> I I think it makes sense. I don't care that it's wordy really. >> No, it's >> I would just delete that. >> This is why we talk about it four times >> at least. >> Okay. So, we'll move on. That was it in the use table. So, let me go. This is
now that point Steve was making earlier about multiple >> I got I got one thing to go back on that wasn't a something of mine. The building inspector added the recreational vehicles. >> Yes. >> Oh yeah. >> Um
>> temporary >> temporary for planning. What? Like if I want to put a recreational vehicle in my driveway, do I need a special permit to do that? If you want to put an RV in your zoned in residential, >> like just on my own yard.
>> Yeah. >> Yes, that's how I would inter. Yes, you would. >> Even >> if I already have a house there, do I have to have a special permit to have an RV? >> Is it is it is a parking your camper next to your garage an accessory use or
is that something that requires a permit? That's what Steve's asking. Well, in this case now, if you have a recreational vehicle there and it's uh now in this case too, it's temporary, which I believe in the definition we said uh 30 days, >> you would need a you would need to get
an approval on a special permit for that. >> What Steve like somebody who just has like a camper that they bring to the Cape in the summer and they store it over the winter. >> That's not something we've ever >> I don't think that's appropriate for us to have a special permit on. I'm asking
that on South Worester there's somebody down there. They have a very goodized camper that's parked right out next to their house and that you can see it clearly but they're not living in it. They like to go on trips and they take it >> and then when they're not using it it's
parked in their sideyard just like >> in my mind I thought this was tied more to a temporary something for a construction of a house or >> right and that's what I'm getting at versus they they aren't living in it when it's sitting at their house. It's just they're storing it. >> Well, like if I'm at my house, let's say
I'm just I own a piece of property. It's summertime. My relatives come up. Can I just put them out in the yard in a thing or do I have to come here for a special permit? >> Technically, you can't live in a camper on residential property, I believe.
>> Well, what if there's a building already on the property? They already have access to showers and bathrooms. >> I know you can't live full-time in a camper. It's not allowed. >> Well, it's not full-time. They're here for vacation. >> Like, that's what I mean. But if we're going to special permit this, >> be a building. >> That's I think that's the clarification. Yeah, we need to
>> I'm not for everyone having a We definitely don't need a special permit for everyone that wants to have a camper. That's insane. >> Yeah. So, >> I thought in my mind this was more for the construction of a house or a business or or whatever was going on, >> right? >> Instead of a mobile home, >> they need they need something temporary
to live in. Well, >> and this gives them >> we have to clarify it a little bit more. >> Yeah. >> Is there a definition of temporary. >> We did. >> Could you just you want to just pull it up quick >> to go further? Like if I just have a piece of property, if I just have a piece of land that's mine with nothing
on it, >> can I bring my own RV there and just >> hang out there? >> If I I like if I have a home to return to, if I have a bathroom available, like am I now are we restricting somebody
from using their land to just be in an RV? Okay, >> so here's u recreational vehicle temporary, which is an RV used as a habitable space for no more than 30 days pursuant to a special permit branded by
the board. >> I I think a special permit would be required if it's more than 30 days. >> Under 30 days should be allow. I Nobody should have to come to the planning board to be in an RV for a week. I don't disagree. >> Yeah,
>> we can change the definition. >> So for more just get rid of no for more than 30 days. >> And this is like only referring to if someone is using it as a habitable habitable space, right? That's how I'm interpreting this. >> Yeah, I think that's another aspect of
it is I don't think this is saying you can't store it. It's just >> living there. Yeah. So, it's not even like as a primary dwelling, >> right? Well, it's >> Well, that's the example I brought up on South W because they don't live in it at all, but it is there. It's been there for years.
>> Yeah. Is it worth just trying to clarify with >> with Ed? >> Yeah. >> And understand kind of cl just share like >> our hesitation with the wording that he proposed >> and what the goal is. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that's
>> and maybe state law on Steve's question >> like like again if I own a piece of land and I have an RV I want to be able to just be there on it and I I understand like there's living like again over 30 days or something but there's no way I'm going to pull permits and everything and
come to meetings. I had to schedule meetings and possibly get a no to camp. People are just storing them and not you know living in them at all. They're not doing a hookup or anything either. >> Well, if it's just going to be storage. >> Yeah, >> that's fine. But then you end up having
people moving in and uh relatives coming and staying with you that uh >> you know, >> well, generally you'd have to hook that thing up to utilities to just simply flat out. >> Paul, it sounds like if you wanted to talk to Ed and say the board doesn't
seem to we definitely don't want to regulate people parking their >> Yeah. recreational vehicles and their property. We don't seem to really want to regulate by special permit for 30 days and under. Does it make sense to him for to change to 30 days and over?
>> Yeah, that makes sense to me. That's that's the note I have. >> That's a good threshold. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Someone wants to come for Christmas. >> I think that also I I'm not exactly sure but align with like squatter rights, >> right? >> That's why I said we should investigate maybe state law a little. Not sure how
that >> I don't even know if it's a health department question. Quite honestly, I'm not sure. >> Also, if you're just storing your RV there, even if you're doing it permanently and then there's a weekend you're having a bunch of family over, it's like, well, we need an extra spare bed and we're going to put a few people
out in the RV. That really >> I don't think any of us have a problem with that. >> No, no, that's what I mean. Things like that should not be a hassle. They should have that sort of freedom. >> I think it has a lot to do with the are you living permanently in it or not? So we're allowing allowing storage and
cousinetti but >> everything else cousinetti good >> and also >> well not but yeah >> the permit for more than 30 days >> let us define how long >> like the permit could go for 6 months >> we could give him a six-month permit in which case it' be enforceable by the
building inspector >> right >> yeah I'll I'll clarify this with Ed >> while we're clarifying things with Ed I I did speak to him last week and He said he'd be uh more than willing to stand up on stage with us at town meeting and explain his suggestions and why we need
to make some changes and etc. >> Cool. >> Awesome. >> Okay, moving on here. So, uh back up to this is section 4.3.1 which started talking to about allowing multiple buildings. And I had started off originally by saying I'd like to make a
change to allow multiple residential buildings within uh w within village uh commercial since commercial and industrial don't uh don't allow it. But Steve has a so I had just put it to say that uh for residential uses as
specified in table 3.2A which we just went over. Um Steve wanted to modify that to just uh allow for topofthe shop and mixeduse developments in village commercial and commercial districts.
So mine's a little more permissive. Um as Steve mentioned earlier wants to keep that commercial aspect of it. Mine is, you know, just uh could would allow top of the shop and mixed use, but in addition, it would allow the uh
well, what change I forget what change did we just make to village commercial? Did we just knock out? >> No, we allowed up to four. >> So, we would allow up to four. My my provision would be you could do multiple >> uh
>> buildings of four plexes. Steves would be multiple build fourplexes plus top of the shop and housing. Steves wouldn't allow the forplexes. So I'd be inclined to allowing it with top of the shop though.
That's where the carrot comes in. Allow top of the shop housing in industrial. >> Well, it it's it's not changing the use table. what's allowed in the use table. >> But what Steve's suggestion is is if we allow it in those c in those zoning districts that allow top of the shop and
mixeduse development. >> So in other words, if we're going to allow multiple residential buildings, there still needs to be a commercial component to them. >> I agree. >> Yeah, that's what you want.
>> If we can get both, we get both. >> Yeah. I I think we dangled the carrot as much as we possibly can. >> I think that's what I want to Is there do we with the way this is written now, Steve? We're asking to have commercial in every
building. Correct. It would say as long as Yeah, you could do multiple buildings, but if it if you're applying for top of the shop, you could do a top of the shop >> with units on top of every building that's a commercial building. If you did a mixeduse complex, you'd have to
provide a commercial component to it and you could do multiple >> potentially residential units, but you have to provide a commercial aspect to it. >> At least one of the buildings would have to have a commercial aspect. So, in one of the buildings there needs
to be commercial. Is that what you're saying? >> To satisfy the commercial need. Yeah, >> that's what I was I was making sure we weren't saying, okay, if you have three buildings, there needs to be a corner laundromat in each of them or something as opposed to you have three buildings and the bottom half of one is a laundromat and a pizza parlor and the
rest can be residential. >> It could be a variation of of those both, but as long as there's a commercial component as part of that project. >> Okay. There's too many package store jokes here. >> I think we're full up on those. So, we
don't need Got it. >> Are we fine with this wording or do we want to >> Yeah, I think what Steve has is fine. The language works. >> Bridget, Eric. >> Oh, yeah. Good. That's fine. Oh, sorry. Oh, >> that's fine. I was thought you were asking the qu the >> I was I was throwing it out. She was
looking in. So, So it says like I got a straw pole of this. We all agree. >> It seems we all agree. >> Okay. So I just have that note there. Um next one. Um
nothing to go on here. I just want to reiterate this was this is dealing with non-conforming uses and the abandonment. I haven't heard from ZBA, but they'll they'll take this up at their next meeting, but they'll be doing they'll we'll get it within time, the time frame
of edits. >> So, we'll wait to hear from them. >> Yeah. >> Their next meeting is the 20th, by the way. >> Yeah. And this is entirely within their wheelhouse, non-conforming. >> Paul, before we keep going, can I just We're looking at in the document that
723 25 red line, correct? >> Yes. There were other comments in the uses table. >> Oh, did I? >> Am I >> Oh, I gosh, I hope I Okay,
my apologies. >> I just started hitting next once I caught up and went, wait a second. >> Ah, yeah, my apologies. Just eager to move on. Uh, >> get out of this use table. So, the next one would be under open space.
And this the note I have here was to rename in uh so section C under open space domestic species rename to exemption exemption list exemption list species. >> It's called the exemption list. >> Yeah. >> So that would be the full list of
animals. >> I mean that's what I'm referring to. That is the document. Yeah. >> Um, >> and you have the animal unit comment below there. That was >> Yeah. >> Domestic.
>> Uh, here here's where I am on this. As much as I want to pursue this, I do think we kind of need to talk it out a little bit more. And we're kind of reaching a line here. >> I think this is going to be one of those hard ones at town meeting. >> This is a little bit hard one. I if we
want to drop this for the moment, I won't fight it too hard. >> I mean, you're going to be the one explaining everything, >> right? I know. I know. And I want a solid document that really works. >> Um, >> add it to your to-do list. >> I I I would be fine with just scrapping
this project for this iteration because it's a lot and I already delet. >> I don't I don't want to screw it up. >> Um, >> correction. I hit resolve, not delete. The only other thing that I would suggest for this >> big difference
>> is we already allow farming by right in the R80 regardless of lot size >> and any property that's two or more acres can just do a farm without our permission. >> Mhm. >> The only thing our current bylaw is restricting is some properties in town
from having a small farm. It doesn't prevent big farms anywhere in town and it doesn't prevent farms in at least a third of the town on any size property. If we just go from special permit agriculture to just buy
right in the residential zone like the R80 already is there's our answer. That's a simpler way to do it. There's many many communities that already have bylaws we can reference in place.
>> So this is >> but then we would have people complaining their neighbor brought a pig in the R40. >> Well again that can already happen next to anybody if they live next to someone with two acres. >> I have a question. >> And it could be Sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. >> Wait, it can be more than 50 animals. It
can just be livestock herds, not just a couple pigs. >> Oh, yeah. >> But go ahead. I wanted more of a definition of what a farm is. >> 50 or more livestock animals for agriculture. Possibly using horses for commercial uses. >> Okay.
>> Like a full scale farm. Uh >> 50 chickens is a big difference. >> Well, that's you know, I mean, if somebody has a dozen chickens. >> Yeah. >> Is that a farm? Do you consider that a farm? >> Well, technically, right, that's exactly the limit on our in our town right now
is a dozen female chickens. But if you have a single pig, you now have to go to special it. Whereas if somebody next to you has two acres, they can just have more than they can have a hundred pigs. So we have no spectrum in between that.
You can have a couple chickens or an entire very intensive use farm. >> And in my mind, it's to for keeping the special permit, my argument would be it's they're smaller lots. Uh most likely if they're smaller lots, the houses are closer together. So, we need
to be able to have some conditions to make the neighborhood happy. >> I I don't disagree with the idea, but again, regardless of the lot sizes nearby, if one neighbor has two acres, they are a fullon farming operation. We
can't do anything. >> Mhm. >> And regardless of our neighbors lot size, I can't stop them from having a bunch of dogs barking and crapping in the yard all day and a dozen chickens. why can't I have one goat or something like that kind of
idea like there might be a limit we need to impose there might be a density requirement or a housing requirement inspection >> another question now if let's say you have a a property that's 2 acres and uh 3/4 of it is uh designated wetlands can
can they be can that be a farm >> what what well yes >> yeah technically 50 chickens on that one. >> And also on a farm, let's say you have 50 horses, the minimum that a farm allows, even though you could have 100
or more. Let's say you have 50 horses. They're not grazing. They're not eating the pasture grass. They're being fed food. So why does a small farm with one or two livestock animals have the requirement to provide the pasture? They
like they couldn't buy hay. Also, nobody makes their dog hunt on their own property for food. You can have what is the difference between a dozen bunnies and a dozen horses? That's a large difference. What is the difference between a couple
pound chickens and 20 lb rabbits or 40 lb turkeys? >> Why can somebody have a 150lb dog, but I can't have a 70 lb goat? >> Right. >> I have a neighbor that walks his goat. Yeah,
>> I don't mind. Goats are cool. >> Goats are pets. >> They could be. Yeah, >> a lot of people. >> Yeah. So, >> but but Steve, you think this is more complicated than you want to address tonight? >> Yeah, I think we need to I think my vision's there, but it needs to be put
together very well and it needs it requires a good document. >> Okay. So, not touching it, >> I think reset to the original standards um that we have like we're not changing the domestic species se section that would have to just go to the original
what we have right now which like the rabbits, the chickens, poultry, livestock. So, just a couple lines that are in the original document. >> So, the comment for Paul in that line is revert back to original. >> Yeah. >> Rather than what we had tried to do.
Yeah. >> Yeah. So I just ex I just >> it's what we have now. >> Go back to original is our original >> our original document. >> Uh number wh which one? Four. >> Yes. >> Go just use current standard. >> Yeah. It's a it's a couple different
uses. >> But it specifically spells out rabbits, poultry, livestock. >> Yeah. >> But it's all sort of restricted. So if you want to have a water monitor, that's okay, right? >> See, that's the that's why I went with the standards for exemptionless species.
Exactly. Exactly. Where does that >> qualif jacking? >> Hedgehogs. >> Didn't they catch that one? >> Yeah, they did catch it. >> Okay, next one. >> Wasn't going to make it through the winter. I'm glad they caught it. >> Recreation, smallcale, indoor,
residential areas. Currently, we have it as no. Do you want to keep it? No. Do you want to change it to special permit? Yes. >> My argument was that it was going to be too hard to to battle the crowd. It might be too intensive for the
neighborhood. I think that's going to be one of the things people point out coming into the neighborhood. Again, we're talking right now. Somebody mentioned they might not want a animal crapping next to their house. Do you want an arcade? >> No. >> Yeah. >> You know, you know, >> I'm I'm I'm fine with keeping these all
three. No, is my opinion. >> Yeah, >> it's a new line, so it wasn't there in the original. So, >> right, >> I'm good with it. >> Would be well. >> No, we're uh >> you just got your straw pole actually. >> Uh there is one thing um
you doubled one thing you have. Um chat, let me let me get on my thing. It's uh the sale and rental of construction equipment. Uh, is it G4? Well, it should be under vehicle uses, >> no used vehicles,
>> vehicle related uses, G. >> But then you also have it in the commercial retail uses category. It's doubled. >> Okay. Um, commercial retail. Um, okay. Right here. Uh, F6. >> Yeah.
Sale or retail of new or used construction or materials handle. It's a machinery. >> Number four. >> Yeah, it is. >> Yeah, that is there. Right. Um, okay. So, >> I think it's a vehicle. >> So, number number four is the one that
we've been using and the one above it is like a hold over from a previous document. Yeah, because that doesn't have the word vehicles. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, get rid of the six under service uses. >> Just get rid of this one >> and re six.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just did good catch. >> Okay. >> Let me just number. Okay. Next one
regarding village commercial and warehouse storage and distribution in facilities including self- storage facilities. We had a by special permanent village commercial but I have the note that you wanted to reconsider that one.
>> Steve, I feel like this was you too. >> That was me. Uh >> I think it was an issue about storage facilities and village commercial that it didn't it conflicted with the nature of >> my idea was yeah the village commercial should be like a sort of pedestrian
storefront area and as as a primary use a warehouse doesn't seem like the most friendly inviting pedestrian active environment. It doesn't seem like it fits there exactly. >> Okay. If if I'm going down
just past Bog Iron or something, do I want the next building to be a warehouse or do I want it to be stores or entertainment? >> Because it's Village Center Core and we don't allow it there. >> Well, just a little bit for Honey. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> No, that's I think that's a fair point.
>> Your example is well taken. >> Yeah. Well, no. >> I guess I'm thinking down on like 123 in Adabor where there's a random U-Haul. >> You have U-Hauls pop up with >> Is that industrial zone or commercial zone? I'm not sure. >> I think it's commercial or industrial. >> Trying to think of the general area that
you're >> Is that the primary use? >> Well, >> yeah, but down in Chartley, it's already commercial industrial, not just village commercial. >> Yeah. >> Um >> and down old colony rather. >> So, we would change that
>> the one past gold past um Yeah. >> Bernie and Phils is not in village commercial, right? >> No, that's commercial. Industrial. >> That's industrial. >> Mhm. >> But there's residential abuing it. That's why I was like, >> yeah.
>> So, we change PB to an N on that, right? >> Yeah, that's what we're you're deciding. >> Good for it. >> So, let's do a uh straw pull. Do we want to keep it as a special permit or change it to a no? I would change it to
a no. >> Tim, >> change. >> I'm a change to a no. >> Change it to a no. >> Change it to a no. >> Keep >> Eric. I'm not leaving you out. >> What? >> I'm not going to leave you out. >> Why not?
>> Okay, we're leaving Eric out. That's >> That's an upstairs. >> Conflicted on that one. Um, neighborhood shop. >> I think we're just considering I think Steve, this might have been another one that you had put out, I think. But this
was So, I guess would we consider keeping this as a use or taking it out? >> Oh, my my my suggestion was not to take it out for sure. My idea was to remove it from primary use to accessory use. >> Oh, okay.
>> So, mission accomplished. It's there right now. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yep. We did do that. >> So, I'm good. >> Was there anything else? I should have made a better note than board to reconsider. Sorry. >> That's all right. Orin's got a question regarding this. Orin, you want to chime
in? What? All right. So to address that one, the occupancy of a home business that has three employees is at least four people, which means you're going to
have at least four parking spots. That's four right off the bat. If anybody arrives there, that's another parking spot. I don't know what a requirement is for a home business, but I imagine it's at least one parking spot. I don't know if we even address that at
all. I didn't say you have to build 12. That's a maximum saying that this building couldn't do more than 12 where I don't know if we have a limit for a home business of how many parking spots. Do we have a limit >> for home >> of how many parking spots a home business can add to their property?
No, but it wouldn't be it would be I don't >> but what would be the minimum required occupancy for a for a house? Well, I'm I'm asking the board for a sec. It What would be the minimum required parking
for a house, a single family home that has a home business with three employees? >> And then what would 200% of that be? >> I think you need seven, eight. You assume two for the house. >> That's my first question. For the house,
how many do we baseline >> saying? Two for the house, two, one for employees, >> employees, >> one for an owner or a work truck, >> two customers. >> Two customers. I just made that up. >> And then double that for 200%. >> Yeah. So, this is technically maybe more
restrictive than what would have been allowed for a home business. Number one, >> this has never been allowed before is the other thought. >> Yes, it was. I grew up with neighborhood stores. That's my goal is to have a neighborhood a small little neighborhood store back again. I grew up with stores
down Reservoir. We grew up with Chartley store. We have down Barrowsville. We had stores. They don't exist anymore. And that is the purpose of this. And that's why it's also by special permit so we can make sure it's done right so neighbors have a chance to speak up. >> And and if we're allowing in some cases
up to four multif family units, what's that's Yeah. Do we have any objection just leaving Paul's comment open in the document for now? >> I mean, I'm fine with however we want to approach it. uncomfortable as it stands.
>> Do we want to do more research on parking numbers etc. So we should like >> or just keep it as like I think partially to Orin's point as we go through this process through October at some point we're going to have to
submit final language and make a call keep it or leave it keep it or take it out basically and do it as a separate disc discussion. I mean, I again, I think this is pretty similar to other
things on this list. There's home businesses, couple employees. >> I can walk into a home bakery and pick up the stuff. Why can't they >> put a sign out front and say I'm a store? Like, you can come pick up your stuff. >> I'm thinking about Charlie Country store. It was on
>> South Worester cuz you had two spots out front. They had probably seven or eight along the side and then some for the residential in the back. So, yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking as a reference point.
>> They actually have plenty of >> and I can look to add at at some uh best practices for neighborhood retail and shops. I mean, it's it's got to be there somewhere. Maybe there's >> Let's take a look at that and I'll present that to you.
>> Sure. Okay, we're done with the use table. Uh, again, my apologies missing that. Uh, it was not Freudian. I swear. Okay, so uh >> liar. >> Oh, sorry. >> Your results aren't showing up. So, that's >> I know why. Yeah, it threw me off.
>> That's my excuse. So, uh, mentioned ZBA is still looking at nonconforming. Um, and now the next one it's not popping up now. Okay. So, this is um 5.11.
This was that requirement we've added to say that if a project is within this is for ZBA applications, but the same is going to be true for your special permits and site plans. But any proposal that's within uh the historic district
shall have applied for certificate of appropriateness from the historic district commission. The historic district commission wanted to add a provision that said that added not just ZBA or building commissioner but planning or any other board commission
where necessary. My concern with their comment is is this is this falls within the domain of ZBA. There's no other board that review ZBA or building commissioner. There's no other
committee that reviews for nonconformities. >> So, we're good and we can move on. >> Okay. Good ruling. Um, jumping in 6.2 21.
Okay. So, um this is just language. This is regarding signs. Um this was the language I verbally told you last time, but I didn't have it written in front of you. But this again came from uh the historic district commission. But for any signs that are within the historic
district, refer to the signage guidelines contained in their Norton historic district guidelines and application instructions. >> Hooray. >> I just wanted to make sure you saw that. And next, um, noise.
I did find the definition for pure tones. I have no idea what it means or but this is pulled verbatim and it so it just says or produce a pure tone condition where the sound pressure level at any given octave bands uh center
frequency exceeds the level levels of the two adjacent octave bands by three or more decibb >> as set forth in that regulation. >> I actually do know what that means. >> Oh, true. He's a musician. >> Yeah.
>> Are you serious? It's the state law. >> It's state law. >> It gives the health agent, the board of health agent enforcement power instead of calling the state and >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I usually apply that knowledge in a different way. That's why I muttered. Are you serious?
>> Yeah. Um, so that's the the sound uh the pure tone definition and just referencing it and referring back to uh the mass laws on it. >> Everyone good? >> Yeah. resolved. >> I'm fine.
>> Um then silly. >> So right under that under hours of operation, we had this discussion. This was one Orin brought up about um adding delivery to this. Um you asked me to put together what we had had in the Cumberland Farms decision. Um when I
looked back at the the Cumberland Farms decision, the condition was truck the only thing I could find was truck deliveries shall be between 8:30 and 9. Um, the other thing I I would just ask the
board to consider uh further in that paragraph, the hours of operation between 6 6 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. I'm wondering if that's not if 6 p.m. is not a little early to stop unloading of boxes or the handling of them and is 8
a.m. a little late for some businesses. So would would it be okay if we went 7 pm to 7 a.m.? >> But um we could certainly with the with the first part of that sentence add delivery. Although I think as we talked about some of us felt like loading and
unloading would imply delivery. But >> I feel like it does. >> Um >> I mean if they're delivering something's got to be put on or taken off the truck. That's loading and unloading. >> It's not regulating that they can't do it. They just can't make noise doing it.
>> And so these are under as a condition of a special permit site plan approval, we may prohibit or regulate these circumstances regarding hours of operation. >> So >> I mean if somebody comes with a small delivery
>> if they don't if they come to us and say I need early deliveries or late deliveries, we can include that. This is just saying we can. >> It's not saying it. It's It's guidelines. It's not
rules. >> Okay. >> I think that's my feeling about it. It's saying >> Well, it's a good distinction. >> We're saying we can have a condition about you making noise when you're unloading stuff, but definitely overnight.
>> Yeah, that's fine. It's not saying we can't restrict noise hours of operation anywhere else either. >> We can restrict hours operation however we see fit. >> So do we want to take do we want to take that time frame out of there? >> Don't put a time frame.
>> I'd be like >> that way we just can set the time we think is appropriate. >> I mean we had it tonight, >> right? >> I like I like it as a baseline. >> I don't know. It's like this is nighttime. It's in our bylaws. If you're going to
be doing stuff between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m., be prepared to tell us why. And this would almost become like the standard condition >> almost, >> unless modified. >> Fair enough. >> I mean, it is a standard condition. >> We always have hours of operation for
commercial uses. >> Yeah. >> So, we're coming in on no change, right? >> I would leave it alone. >> I'm fine. >> What's next? >> Resolved. >> What's next? So, but leaving loading and unloading in the the opening there. Yeah,
>> we want to add delivery, I guess, is the other. >> I don't see a harm of adding delivery. >> It's the same if you're loading or unloading. It's is delivered or going to be delivered. I I don't >> delivery, loading, unloading. Yeah, delivery can be the second word.
>> It's all may prohibit >> delivery activities involving loading or unload. Isn't delivery and unloading the same thing? >> No, it's not. That's just it. Yeah. >> The white zone is for loading and unloading only. >> Way too few people got that reference.
I'm disappointed. >> Airplane. >> Thank you. >> You got it. >> No. Joe's garage. Frank Zappa. >> That's true, too. Um the next one 6.5.6. Um this was the discussion the section over land disturbance and we had a
conversation about what about land tying it back to landscaping and so I did add the uh reference back to section 6.4 for which is landscaping. But as I went back and looked at this, I'm like, I don't know that how the two really align because
one is talking about trying to minimize land disturbances. The other is about your landscaping, which are really two different things. I would I just don't quite under I just don't as I look back at it, I don't see that there's a good connection back to
it. No, we want to say if you can limit land disturbance. >> Yeah. >> Preserve the natural drainage. Why reference our landscaping bylaw? I'm fine with that. >> Are you Paul, are you saying that we were you were asked to?
>> Right. >> We asked you to. >> Yeah. It was just part of the >> I don't remember. >> I'm losing track. >> We take it back. Right >> now we take it back. No, we take it back. >> Okay. That was easy.
>> Let's see. Site building. >> It was us that suggested that we could take it back. >> Maybe it's just like because it's talking about land disturbance. What's this the heading here? It's site development and operation standards. So,
okay. So >> it's almost just like the whole thing is guidance for how you should design your site. >> Right. Right. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> So land disturbance almost isn't the the right title for it if we're going to
talk about landscaping. Well, it well landscaping is dealt with in a prior section. >> Yeah. So, I guess >> landscaping is like all the about all the stuff you did disturb. >> Correct. That's true. >> It's about the spot you didn't disturb. >> Yeah. Just about the land clearance and
>> leave it wherever as much as you can is the guidance there. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Try to minimize that impact. >> So, I guess it Yeah. Delete the reference I guess. >> Yeah. So, I just took it out. Um so the next one is down in section um
well 6.5.7.6A. This was a conversation um and Orin had a point about well can we require mitigation? Well we actually did but it wasn't I moved it up right behind right under uh into this section on level of service. It was in a different section,
but I think it's a more natural, it's better organized having it right here as letter C because typically you're going to trigger mitigation if it's a if there's a level of service issue only legally. That's the only way we can do it anyway. So, this does say that we can require a
special we can require off-site mitigation improvements particularly for intersection widening and traffic signals and so forth. other traffic improvements or traffic management improvements. So,
uh I think this is better now here. Um >> and we fixed the what we discussed last time where the mitigation actually is may require as a condition instead of just >> make a plan. The plan needs to be uh >> adding this did that. >> Yeah.
>> It it it better uh >> Can you go back up just for one second? Right. >> Sure. We don't take uh we don't take the chat into the discussion but >> it's it's defi Orin >> I read it
>> wanted the definition of TMC >> yeah it's earlier in section five Orin so it is there thank you >> but it does say we can require as a condition instead of just planning then it's you
need to do this um if we can move on. >> Yes. >> Um this was uh regarding uh this is under special regulations earth materials. Um Orin had the comment uh can we add that it will not adversely
impact adjacent properties because we had taken out the decrease the value. Paul, can you go back up to right after the mitigation at the bottom of that pa the top of the next page? There's another comment. No,
no. For the after the mitigation, there was another comment at the top of the next page. >> On mitigation, right? >> So, it's on page 56 for me. 56. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's um under sight distance, I
think. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, this was um Okay. The site distance. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't think there's there's I looked there's not a section that I could find in in section one that we
could put that which is I think one reason why Ed wanted to put it here. Okay. Yeah. So just to make sure if we're good with it here and we don't have any other comments that resolve it and that way it
uh >> then um okay >> so with this adversely impacting adjacent properties uh under earth materials um I just wanted to point out that in in the special permit criteria
in 10.5.2 to they one of the criteria you look at does include impacts to neighborhoods. I mean it's certainly fine to put the language in here but it's covered elsewhere >> and the adversely impact was what was
suggested because Babroski had said we can't talk about just the value to adjacent property. Right. >> Right. Right. But again, I think this is consistent with your special permit criteria approval requirements where we talk about it shall not out, you know, the
effects of a project shall not outweigh the beneficial impacts to the town or the neighborhood. Uh, >> this seems like a little more specifically see effects of a project here. The effects of actually moving the earth materials. >> Yeah, I'm fine with adding it in again.
>> Again, I think it's it's consistent with it. >> Yeah. Just being a little more specific in this spot >> right >> for verbiage like this >> so I don't feel like it's a repeat >> you know
>> it's certainly supportive of of other sections >> I mean throughout this throughout the document we talk about not >> impacting adversely impacting >> the the surrounding neighborhood I mean that would wouldn't be much of a bylaw
if we didn't prevent that. >> Um, so, uh, can I move on or >> did I am I about to bypass something else? >> Resolve. >> Good. >> I think you're good. >> Uh, and Tim, I think this one was going
to you. I tried to find something. >> I have what I want so I can share it. >> Okay. >> So, >> you want to share it up on >> this 813? This is the wireless communication. >> Okay.
>> So share. So this is what I want to do. >> So the issue that we had is that our definition for a wireless communication facility said that anything that's I'm
paraphrasing anything that's part of the facility is the wireless communication facility. And then we said the setback of it needed to be from the height of the structure plus 20 ft. But it didn't discount the fact that
you could have like a tower and then like a shed and you would if you read it strictly you would be saying that the shed could fall 100 ft horizontally. >> Mhm. >> Um or 200 feet horizontally. So what
I've suggested here is adding clarifying language to say the setback of the freestanding tower antenna monopolar other transmission structure from the property line and their language is the same and then the setback for any such structure
should be from the existing lot line and then setbacks for accessory building should follow whatever the underlying zone says >> to just try and carve out the big tall thing from anything else. >> Looks good.
>> And we've had this before. We've had this discussion. >> We had this discussion and we basically just gave the gave the applicant a waiver because they >> correct >> because it made sense. Yes. So, if we're good with this, I'll send this to Paul and it can just drop
in. >> But >> anybody good with that? >> Yep. >> Yeah. It's been on my >> like that number 27 on your list of things that annoys you for like two years. >> Well, hit resolve could take out the easily if they fell >> down. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm good now.
>> Does it go up and need them would lay across the whole town? >> Okay. Oh, let me uh go back. >> Going back. Are you going up to 813? >> Yeah. Uh to section 813. >> This was one I I've actually been
wanting to change for a while. Um just one change. This is So this is the affordable housing uh section, right? And and I'm recommending we just add a sentence that says permissible residential uses must comply with the with the use table
with the residential use table. And this is we've had now three people including myself who misinterpreted this bylaw originally to think that multif family could be allowed in any residential district. I think we need to clearly say
that's not the case that you need to look at the use table and if it's R60 or R80, you can't do multif family in it >> and just put this to bed cuz I've you know >> I'm very comfortable with that. >> Yeah, it's not really doing anything
other than clarifying >> just referring to the use table. >> And if you've had that experience with it, then that tells you it should be clarified. >> Yeah, I'm just glad I wasn't the only person who >> resolve >> resolve. move on. >> We're moving on. Um, so, uh, now we're
getting to 8.3. So, we can take a look at that senior housing facility. So, again, this was, um, the point that came up was we should separate senior housing from senior housing facility. I
looked through this. You see definitions. It says see senior housing facility in the definition section. I'll show you later that we I moved it. I didn't see a reference to senior housing, but um if you do, let me know.
But I think this takes care of the, you know, the issue Orin pointed out that 55 and over communities aren't isn't the same as these other senior housing facilities which do require medical care and other
things. Any questions on that? um accessory dwelling units. I have asked the attorney general's office now multiple times uh to and that's section 8.4. So just keep scrolling down. Um
can we require separate hookups for utilities? That was a question that the water and sewer commissioner a superintendent asked. >> I'm going to say it's going to be no. And it's because you cannot have more than two electric services going to one
property unless you have two addresses. So an ADU doesn't establish another address. >> Yeah, I >> the answer is going to be no. You can you cannot >> I haven't even drafted it, but I >> I'm pretty sure I I heard this somewhere, read it somewhere, but I know
for a fact you cannot have more than one utility go into an address >> cuz I know the water department would like to split the utilities, the water and sewer. You know, that was what the
superintendent wants. But >> couldn't they just add another meter further down the line? Um it's yeah I mean how they they could split it I mean I guess physically you could split it on the lot itself but I think for their case they'd really like separate lines but you know they we just like with with
MBTA zoning the state has said do not put restrictions in that will prevent ADUs from happening. >> That's what that does >> and that it could it could. So, I'm just trying to address the concern that the superintendent brought up.
>> Um, I wouldn't worry about that too much. I think your original >> If you want to save if you want to save Allen's comment for the next time you talk to Ed. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Unless you hear different, we're just going to assume we're going to keep it as it is, >> right? Um, okay. So, I'm going to move
down to section 10.5. And this goes back to the historic district commission. Um they so when I originally wrote this draft for you, I had suggested that uh but for both site
plans and special permits that the applicant should have received a a certificate of appropriateness, but you you directed me to say should just apply for it because my way was a bit more cumbersome. Um, I just received comments
yesterday from the commission asking that we basically restate they should have been granted a certificate of appropriateness before they submit. Um, I think your original instinct is
correct that they should just be in the just like any other board or commission. We don't say you don't limit you don't put a restriction in to say you don't act until the conservation commission acts just like earlier with um 260 South Washington.
>> Yeah. >> This is treating it >> I can't imagine them approving a project and then the project coming here and us asking for anything to be changed because then they already have their certificate and a change would break that certificate.
Like we should all be reviewing it at the same time. >> Yeah. >> I mean, we're not going to give approval until they have their certificate granted, but we got to be able to like >> we want to be able to have a joint meeting or something, >> right? >> Mhm.
>> If we need the certificate, then we couldn't have a joint meeting. >> Well, we want them to be able to make the change on the fly and then close it out like Steve's saying. >> Yeah. My vote would be to leave it like this. >> Leave it as it is. >> Okay. Well, that's going to be this case. And then um
>> yeah, and and maybe that's a the use case to bring up to the commission is if you prevent somebody from applying until they have the certificate, there's no way we could have a joint meeting where we discuss historic versus planning for a
particular project, which is what we'd probably want to do. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. and they can outright tell us whether they feel like they're not going to grant it. >> Yeah, >> that could prevent us from going forward. But
>> if they publicly if they properly notice their meeting and then come into our meeting. Yes. >> Yeah. So, >> I know the last time they didn't properly notice their meeting, so they weren't able to speak. I mean, again, I I I could imagine them
approving a project that meets their criteria, but it doesn't match any of ours. >> Oh, yeah. 100%. >> Because they don't know ours. They don't have their own >> and we don't know their methods. So, >> so >> yeah, for bank. >> Yeah.
>> And Paul, I would just explain what we just talked about too that we leave an applicant can apply to conservation first, can apply to planning first, can apply to zoning first. It's all up to the applicant. Having them all open at the same time is >> much more better.
>> I say if you want to have a joint meeting with us, we need to be able to have an application before we do that. >> Mhm. >> So, we're good. We can move on. >> Yep. I'm just getting to definition. So, we're getting to the end here. >> Looks good to me. >> Um,
>> are there three periods in everybody else's document? >> I'm sorry. Are there three periods at everybody else's document? >> Yes, at the end of activities. Yeah, I didn't care. >> Okay. The first change
um we didn't like the definition of bank, which included the word bank in it. So, I just pulled from uh Westport a finance financial institution that's open to the public and engaged in deposit banking and that performs closely related functions such as making
loans, investments, and fiduciary activities. >> Resolved. >> Resolved. >> Resolved. >> People answer like that. Can you tell me what a bank is? Well, it's like a bank, you know, >> bank. >> Yeah. Um, not many more, but unfortunately my search function isn't
working great. But I'm going to get down soon to >> senior housing facilities. What do you mean? Oh, >> I had this all set up. I had this with bookmarks that would just take me from one to the next, but >> this just didn't work with me.
>> Old version of Word, I think. And >> these iPads are great for the fast scrolling you can do. >> And again, with neighborhood shop, we'll we'll look at this uh Oh, I think yeah, >> assisted living, continuing care,
independent independent living facility. >> Okay. And then I'll look at the recreational vehicle temporary. Um, okay. So, you can see right here, senior housing is above senior housing facility. >> Different floors.
So, I moved it out from under senior housing facility to just above senior housing facility. >> Resolved. >> Resolved. >> Well, don't I still see under senior h facility? I still see long-term care facility right there in the second.
>> Yeah, but that's a different that's a different function than senior housing. >> We're not quite done actually. >> Oh, no. >> Yeah. So under senior housing facility, we have senior housing facility.
>> Oh dear. Yeah, you do. >> Am I? >> No, I see that. >> I guess are we saying senior housing facility can include any of these? >> Are you suggesting putting the definition above the list?
>> Yes, I am. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah, this is because all of these uses are right here. >> Yeah, then I'll feel better that long-term care facilities in there, too, which is repeated. >> I'll just put this next to senior housing facility
>> there. Yeah. seriously senior housing facility or long-term care facility. Then right above you have a definition for what is a long-term. >> Yeah, he defined all of them. So, >> okay, >> it doesn't say that it was done uh
properly. Yeah. Okay. >> Did you finish the job then? Oh, yes, I finished the job. >> Um I think that's it, but let me scroll.
I mean, it's only 9:30. Paul, do you want to start at the beginning again? Make sure we didn't miss anything. >> Can we go back to the uses table? >> No, >> no, >> no. >> I'm still on animal unit. >> That is it. >> Some reason the scroll back function is broken over here.
>> That is it on. >> We're done. >> So, I have my homework. >> So, we have a couple more things that we're still talking about. >> Yeah. Is it just I want to make sure I have them down. neighborhood shop and then are we striking the animals for now? >> Striking the animal. >> Striking the animals for now and the
neighborhood shop. We're going to get back into the neighbor. >> I look at some standards for that and see if if something >> if there's a best practice public comments or comments from other boards or who knows what. >> Yeah. >> All right. Sounds good. >> No water monitors.
>> Unless anybody else has a >> Can I I was I was going to say we still need to make the motion to send placeholders language. >> Sure. Everybody comfortable voting on PL just submitting placeholder language to the
town? >> Yeah. >> Make a motion. >> We have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Abstain. >> There you go. Paul,
next meeting is August 26. Paul, what's that meeting looking like? >> O'Brien. Um, so we have a few things that have been added on. There's a subdivision uh plan. They're adding they're creating two lots. There's an existing house in the front and they
want to create one in the back. >> Um, we have a top of the shop proposal at the old rich property at 77 West Main Street. And then >> consider that. >> What is the third one?
>> Let me get into remember. Is that the one that we approved like a dup weird duplex and now they tore it down? >> No, >> different one. >> Different. >> Okay. >> There's a there's a number of different properties. Brian's pulling up the third one. >> That's fine. We don't need to talk about it early.
>> Well, that's fine. >> Is that the one where everybody thought they were going to tear down Honeydew? >> I don't know. >> It's right near it. >> Yeah, that's right near it's it's near it. And that one um that project has actually gone through conservation commission. So, I expected for that site.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. We haven't received They haven't filed yet. >> Oh, last one is duplexes zero elm. >> Oh, of course. Of course. So, there's a >> Is that the parking lot? >> That's the parking lot. >> And so, they'll be going in front of the
ZBA to get a variance uh for lot size because they need 80,000 square feet. They have 40. Is that soil not contaminated? >> Um, no. >> Like, >> no. >> 20 ft away.
>> They had we had monitoring wells over there. >> Uh, it's always been a parking lot as far as we know, and the monitoring wells didn't show anything on that site for my recollection. >> I wouldn't be surprised if the lot's okay. >> Capped over with asphalt for a long
time, too. It's not like >> Well, it's Yeah. I mean, you we saw aerials from the 40s and 50s and it was there, but I my recollection was they didn't have underground contamination on that side. >> We'll deal with it. >> Remember, it didn't because when there
was that woman was, this is a long time before I was I joined, she was presenting, they did speak to that and they they had the map and they were showing where the contamination actually was. It was mostly on site and then bit down. >> Unfortunately, it was over there by the
river. >> Yeah. So, that one's there, too. >> Um, that one's that one's going to ZBA on the 20th as well. >> Okay. We'll know where that stands if the ZBA makes a determination on the 20th >> because if they if if they deny it, then
it doesn't make sense to come forward. But they're trying. >> And on that note, motion to adjourn. Seconded. >> We have a motion and a second to adjurnn. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. >> Good night. Thank you.
>> Be