Good evening everybody and welcome to the Tuesday May 20th meeting of the Norton Planning Board. The public is welcome to participate in person or remotely. In person we are here in Norton Town Hall in the crane room and you can also join remotely via the
address listed in the agenda. You can also email questions to town staff before the meeting as listed in the agenda. I am going to call this meeting to order. Planning board business and policies.
Paul, I don't believe we have anything for right now. We'll hold off some discussion till after the meeting after the public hearings. I don't believe we have any bills or warrants or minutes to approve. I believe we do. Minutes. Yeah. Bills.
Bills. Bills. But we also have need for some previously approved minutes to be signed. Who needs to sign this? All right. The question was who needs to sign? Yeah. Who who do you need to sign?
I would think Eric. Yeah. They already voted on obviously, right? So, yeah. Add it to your stack. Eric, I will bring a little thing. First item on our agenda will be ANR14 for 113
Mansfield Avenue. The owner is Z Queen Quinn Zang. The applicant is Zenith Consulting. The applicant is seeking to create one lot. Paul, do we have someone online? We do. I see. Yes. Yes, I'm here. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Yeah. So, um, what we're planning on doing is this is, um, the property that's located at 113 Mansfield Avenue. Uh, most people know it as the Jasmine Garden
Restaurant. Um, and they are simply looking to divide their lot into two lots. one on which uh on which the uh restaurant is going to remain and then a second parcel that's on the corner of
Robinson Road and Mansfield Avenue and they are looking to possibly develop that um new lot uh in the future with a possibly mixeduse building on that lot. So, we have ample frontage on uh
Robington Road with the new lot of the old one. I'm sorry. Uh and and we have the shade factor and um I believe it meets all your
requirements for Is it possible you could zoom in a little? It's just hard to maybe it's hard to see the meeting. Yes, I will. If anybody's on Zoom and not presenting us, they please mute your microphone. Thank you.
So, it looks like you have 220 ft of frontage on Robinson. Is that correct? That is correct. I don't uh have any questions myself. I'll go to the board. Anybody in person or Rob?
I believe I'm sorry I couldn't hear that. I said I'm going to the board for questions. I'm wondering anyone here in person. Any questions? I'm sorry. I don't have any particular issues. Definitely has front engine access. That's pretty much what we need for an
AR. Rob, do you have any questions? No, I do not at this time. It really doesn't tell me much to base questions on. Well, with no questions, I The only two things we're looking at is the frontage and if it has accuracy of access.
So, yeah, and it does have those. And we are looking to see Brian's upstairs seeing if we actually have the ANR the myar. Well, if there's no other questions, I'd be looking for a motion. Motion to
endorse ANR-14. Second. Second. We have a motion, a second. We have a member that is remote tonight, so we're going to have to do roll call votes. So, I'll start with the members here in public. Tim, yes. Steve,
yes. Bridget, yes. Eric, yes. Rob, yes. Yes. And here we are with the mile and Bob, we have a mile here. We'll sign them after the meeting. Great. Thank you very much everybody. Thank
you. Next item on our agenda is special permit SP16 for one Dean Street. The owner is JSC Holdings. The applicant is Morris Engineering. There's looking for 14 units of contractor style bays and 10
residential triplex buildings. This item has been continued several times and the applicant is looking to continue again to July 8th. And since we have not opened this hearing, um we have no time limit issues right now. So I would be looking for a
motion to continue to July 8th as they are actively working with town staff to resign red do some plans and uh redesign the project that uh motion to continue special permit
SB16 to July 8th 2025. That's Eric with the motion. Bridget with a second roll call vote. Tim, yes. Steve, yes. Bridget, yes. Eric, yes. Rob,
yes. I will vote. Yes. Next item on agenda will be site plan SPR11, which is 361 rear Old Colony Road. The applicant is Jason Massie. The application is for a 6,400 ft garage and
trade service building with 12 parking spaces. This meeting has also been continued on a few times. Is there anyone online? Uh I see Michael Silva is the engineer is is available.
Mr. Hawai good evening. Um so I'm trying to Can you guys see my screen? Yep. Okay. So that this is what we submit to you guys last time and uh we continued it because we weren't sure what was going on with this vernal pool. It was
early spring so conservation and the botness kind of go out there and re-evaluate it and it did kind of change what we were doing. So we continued it a couple times. Um and this is kind of what we just submitted back to you guys.
As you can see this access road has changed. Um they found a burn pool in this isolated method. So we're now awarding that area and locate the access drive. Um so that will go up here
through this way. Um nothing else has really changed as far as um parking spaces, lighting. Um we had a little bit uh decrease in the impervious
um rate decrease. So, we did move our drainage. Um, realigned it a little bit. Um, but we just moved this whole area down here and now it's more focused up here. Um, I don't know if you guys have questions. We kind of just submitted it
recently. This kind of just to introduce you guys to the changes we made, but I think uh the point I guess is just to get you guys familiar with what we're doing, but I think conservation is going to be the one here. Uh, we're trying to wait and see what they say. understand. I think was there a new
landscaping plan also from the last time we um yeah I talked to Jason and his landscaper. Um we're going to basically um it's just this where this access road comes in is a screening they're going to do. So we'll have an update landscape
plan this year. It just hasn't come in yet. Mr. Chair. Yes sir. Um Mr. Just the just from the new access road, is the fire department seen a turning radius or something or is that still on the to-do
list? I can see that in our system it shows them as in process for approval, but I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question? Um just to see if the fire departments looked at the turning radius at that
first right that right angle turn there coming in. Yeah. Um, yeah, we we saw their climate and we did do this gradual winding and we did this 30 foot radius and I'm not sure on the swept analysis
if it was confusing um they thought this whole road was proposed but this existing driveway was already there. So, I think I'm going to reach out to Deputy Dobbins and maybe get some dialogue with him and maybe go back and forth and and try to get to see
what maybe we should show. Maybe it's just not showing well on our plan down here. So, I think we're going to reach out to him and make his entire work and see what he wants to see on the plan. So, that would be part of the next obvious landscaping plan and address
that comment with the fire department. All right. Yeah. Anytime I see a right turn, I think that a fire truck's not going to like it very much. So, Right. Yeah. or right angle turn, I guess. go down to this
analysis right here. We kind of we did redo this one to maybe uh maybe for this truck to go in. So yeah, I'm going to reach out to him. He just got a comment I think yesterday. So I'll reach out to him and
see what he wants to see and just clarify his question. Thank you. My only other comment before we go to the rest of the board will be uh we had some board torn over since we opened this meeting. So we'll only have five
voting members on this art on this application just so you are aware. Anybody else on the board questions? As long as the fire department approves, conservation approves, I don't have any issue with the driveway moving. Rob, if you have any questions.
No. Motion to approve with the conditions on the um We're going to hold off on We're going to hold off on any motions to approve. They want to go through finish going through conservation in case they Okay. Do it with the commission, but yeah, we can do it that way, too. Yeah,
they might have to change some things. So, we're going to hold it off till the next time. Fair enough. Is there any member of the public that wishes to speak either here in person or online on this? Not seeing
anybody. Uh I believe the next meeting Paul am looking at June 3rd or June 17th. Do you have a preference? Um I believe the rest conservation meeting we're on is June 9th. So anyone else with the next one following that
reply to us? So that would be June 17th. Okay. So chair be looking for a motion to continue this to June 17th. So moved. Seconded. Motion to continue to June 17th.
We had it in the room. I think Rob got there late. We have a motion in a second. Roll call vote. Tim. Yes. Steve, yes. Bridget, yes. Eric, yes. Rob, yes. And yes,
thank you very much. See you next month. All right. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is definitive plan DEF1 and special permit 21 for 19 Rock Lane. The owner is Field Engineering. The applicant is seeking to
make three lots or two of the lots getting duplexes built. This was continued from our last meeting of May 6th. Good evening, Mr. Richio. Good evening. Richio from field engineering on behalf of the applicants. Um I'm first going to touch on the the
definitive subdivision um as we have two separate petitions here before you this evening. So, if I could Paul, did you want to share since he's got the hard copies going here? Could you share the the utility, the one I um submitted onto the
portal? It's the latest SP1 plan. Okay. Is it uh is it the buildout for the multifamilies? Those are the areas. No, there was one before that. I can I just show um Okay. Let me
Okay, I'll just pull it off right here. Utilities PDF. I can just get into basically what we had done um on the definitive. We were still waiting for a number of uh comments with regards to the roadway on the on the portal from uh fire was still
in progress. Um water and sewer and highway department. Um we have since received uh the their approval from the fire department and had submitted a um a truck turning uh radius plan to them to show that the was adequate turning
movements around the culdeac. Um the revised utilities which are shown on the plane here that is on the board as well addressed the comments on the water um services and the locations of the hydrants with um the water department as well as the fire
department and they have since approved that as well in the portal. And then um either this morning or late uh late yesterday uh the highway department signed off on this as well um saying that it met their requirements as long
as the the road remains private. Um which is what we understood as well being a being a dead end road. Yeah, I can I can confirm that too. Um Jared Ferrer said that he was okay. So, um, with with those comments, I just wanted
to add, um, just to summarize again, we're proposing just under 200 foot expansion of the roadway with a with a turnaround at the end of it. Um, proposing, uh, two driveways off of that um to service the the development of the
two lots. Um, the storm water management system was reviewed by your cons by your consultant and approved. Um, and that is represented on the latest plan. submitted to the board. We also are showing um street trees around the
around the road as required by the by the rules and regulations and um we did go over the the waiverss we did we were requesting on the roadway at the previous meeting and those are still all valid. Um so with that uh we feel we've
addressed everything required for the for the form C portion of the project and um we can fold into the the special permit if we like that makes the most sense. So if I can just add chair I've spoken with Jared Ferrer about the
waivers particular how it affects the roadway and he was fine with all all of the requests. Do you want to just go through the waiverss quickly while we talking about it? It was what seven of them I believe. I can you want me to read through them again please? Yeah.
All right. The the first wave was on the um the vertical data that's shown on the plans um to use NABD 1988 instead of uh NGBD 1929. The 88 vertical data is what's standard now for surveyors and what the
uh GIS and mass grid all the coordinate systems are based off of and that's the common um vertical data for for subdivisions for design plans and survey in general. Um the second was to uh not
require sidewalks on the extension. There are no sidewalks in the area and um there would be no need for sidewalks on this portion of the road. Uh the third waiver would be to um allow the use of Cape Cod BM along the edge of the
roadway. That's consistent with what's on Birch Lane for the drainage purposes. And we just wanted to remain consistency consistent with the cross-section of the existing roadway and that folds into the next waiver which was to um allow a 20ft
width of roadway. Once again, that matches what's existing within Birch Lane. Um the fifth waiver is to allow the extension of a dead end street less than 1,000 ft with less than 13 residential units. That's how it's
worded in the bylaw is in the rules and regulations. Even with this extension, we are still less than uh 1,000 uh ft and there are less than 13 residential units. Um and as we mentioned, the
uh dead end street would remain private. The sixth waiver was uh to allow the use of HDP drain pipe in lie of uh concrete. Um as this portion of the road will remain private operation and maintenance will remain the responsibility of the
the the homeowners. We just prefer to use HTP. It's it's standard now for drainage on private lots and such. And um it's um what is shown on the plans here. And then the seventh waiver was um to not
require a full environmental impact statement. We have uh reviewed like we had mentioned in the previous meeting the wetlands and the storm water with um the wetlands with conservation storm water was reviewed by the consultant and um we're constructing two new uh
residential lots as a result of the subdivision and um the storm water report itself um provides a narrative that basically touches on any of the issues in the formal environmental impact statement including and erosion
and sedimentation control. So those are the the seven waivers that we requesting. Be before we go any further, I just want to ask the board if there's any questions you have or comments on the waiverss that they are asking for.
Questions? Not not on the waiverss, but I don't know if it's being addressed yet. um about a public easement over the the roadway, the private section over the over the we talked about it that the last meeting bringing the easement over the over the roadway. Um if the town is wants wants
that, I mean, I don't see that being an issue, you know. Cool. Rob, do you have any questions specifically to the waiverss before we move on to the special permit? No, I do not. Thank you. Yeah, this is more of a question for
Paul. The DATIM noted that's just from the subdivision control law or the it's our it's our own subdivision regulations. Would that have been something that we caption recodification or no? No, because we didn't amend the we weren't proposing to amend the subdivision
rights. Okay. Thank you. And let's not do that anytime soon. Just making sure I knew what we were talking about. Okay. Um, now on to the special part. Paul, if you could put the um the buildout one up
first. And I put this here as well, just point of reference. Let's build out R1. Yes. Yep. You'll know our one that was posted on the the portal today. The per the per Yeah. Yeah. The purpose of this place is kind of tough
to see and read, but I can um if you wanted to zoom in a little on the uh the culac part itself. Uh the purpose of this plan was just to show a bit more with regards to the relation of the two structures to existing conditions on the site and also
to try to to show um the areas of trees that will be retained as part of this project and um just to see show how this would fit in with the neighborhood. Um, as this
shows, uh, the either duplex is at least 295 ft away from the houses at the end of uh, Birch and Rock Lane. Um, also
the houses that were on North Lake View Road. Um, we have 370 ft from the house at 17 Rock, 300 ft from the house at 16 Birch, and over 300 ft from the house at
23 North Lake View, and then uh just under 300 ft of the house at 15 Birch Lane. The only house that we are we're a bit closer to is the one at the end of Fern which has extended into a big lot
area there that's um just over just just over 100 ft. We're trying to wait and then if you can see there, it's tough to see on the screen, but there's a clouded area on the plan of a of a stand of trees that would be retained between that duplex and the D in the in the
house at at Fern, the end of Fern. Um, as we uh discussed at the last meeting, the intent here was to pro propose two um duplexes, one on each spot, try to fit in with the character
of the neighborhood. I do have a rendering of the type of structure. This isn't the exact building, but it is the type of structure that you're looking at doing at each house. If you wanted to pop the right, you can see it pretty good on the screen here, though.
Um, looking at approximately 1,900 to 2,000 total square ft per unit. Um, three bedrooms, 2 and 1 half baths. There'd be a a This doesn't show there'd be a garage on either side. And then um
once again they'd be sent back as as shown on that plan. Um Paul's going to share in a second on the screen. Both of the houses um both of the structur structures would be uh served
by water and sewer as we mentioned. um individual driveways and um storm water management systems been designed to take the roof runoffs from each of these structures as well. And um we just feel it's a it's a it's a this type of unit may have been some
misconception misperceptions on what type of condo building was going to go on these two lots. Um, we had looked at the potential of doing four single family lots out here, but that would have entailed taking the um the lock
cabin down and more roadway work. So, we went to the to the two um the two duplex scenario. Um, we did just look we also um it was stated at the last meeting that there were no really no other
multif family uses in the area. um or very limited. If you could put the 1/2 mile radius aerial [Music] up. Um through our research at the assessors, um we were able to come up
with we we found there's um 16 properties within a half mile of this site that are either two family or they have two houses on the lot. or one actually has three houses I believe and then um 10 of those are two
family or multi houses and six of those are single family with in-laws um so basically two units there's also three more just outside the half mile radius um on Cob Street on Reservoir Street and
then there's a two-unit structure on all the road um taking those lots is approximately, if you average it out, it's about a unit per 10,000. You get 10,000 square ft of area per unit. Some
of those lots are small, real small. Um, and then on our site has we need 80,000 ft per two units, right? Yeah. 80,000 ft² per lot um for duplexes, which is above and beyond 60,000 that you would need
for a single family use. Um, so we're just trying to present some additional information that we feel, you know, it's not totally out of the character of the area to have a multif
family uh type use in in in the area and um we uh basically feel that this would be uh a good a good fit to develop that that lot. Um the main thing of their special
permit requirements is that it's socially economically desirable. Um the two these two lots developing these lots would increase the tax base of the area would fulfill the need of housing in the not necessarily the grove area but overall in of the
area. um would also provide a turnaround at the end of Birch Lane which would provide um improve the situations at the end of that road. Um and then um we just feel that those advantages outweigh any
potential detrimental effects to the area. And anything else you guys want to add? I think I pretty much covered it. Paul, maybe this is for you. What I had written down last meeting need copy of varants from the 70s. Was that for this? Was that for the
for the we did have it. We did get a copy. We did get a copy. It's in the ANR folder. The fire department did look at this. Yes. Written down also. And you assume you're still a member. We're going to put a
sign at the beginning of the street that says dead end. We could do that if if Jared wants that there. I mean, that's that's fine. Then I wait. I think the comment last meeting was if we start putting dead end road on every on one street and on the up in the
Grove, we have to put it on every street and then uh that's that's all it sides. Yeah. Well, if the applicants wouldn't do it, I guess we on the end of Bur that's really all we we're focused on is the Bur Street or Bur Lane.
I don't have anything else written down. I'll go to the board. Any other questions from the board for either the definitive plan or the special permit? We just covered it. Yes. Thanks. Um Mr. Richio, you mentioned that at one point you looked at this as this area is for single
family lots, but this is the path you decided to go go with. Um, as we talked about last meeting, the duplexes are what you're asking for the special permit for. Correct. If, and I'm not saying that this is
indicative of how I would vote on anything, if the board voted not to grant the special permit and left you with the by right use, would you potentially go back to that original scenario or would you stick with you think the the two lots that you have here? And
if you don't know, you don't know. I'm just asking. the the original four lot scenario entailed taking down the log cabin and clearing a much greater area of the site than what we're proposing for the two duplexes. So at that point we basically took that off the table if
the special permit were denied. I don't know what we would end up we are allowed to by right lots off of this roadway um regardless um and there is potential for a third but I think it'd be difficult.
So at minimum you would be putting planning to put two single family lots where these are now regardless of how we would roll on the special permit. That that's I mean that's your estimation at this point that you Yeah.
If I could add to that you it actually because of the state law it could be two single family homes with ADUs. Correct. Yes. Any other members of the board? Rob,
you're still good. Yeah, I'm still good. Thanks. You asked the questions. I Mr. Richie, I'm going to ask any members of the public wants to uh come up if we can uh after each John if there's something you want to address. We'll do one at a time.
Again, we'll start with any members of the public here in person. Question, comment. [Music] I think we all understood. If if you want, you'd have to come up to the podium and now's the meeting. Yep.
You did great last time. Just your name and address, please. Jen, 17. Um where the concern for me is what you just said is are they going to build anymore? Are they going to knock down the log cabin and build more back there?
And there's not active but you didn't say yes or no. I'm not sure. So that concerns me. And has the log cabin sold? It has. So someone is living there. I saw them there. So people down there. I don't know. If you want to just
ask us the questions. I don't know. You know, there's people down at the lock cabin. So, if that sold, I didn't know if there was an opportunity to still take that away and knock it down. So, that's what I'm kind of concerned with. Sounds like you said no. No, but they
would they would have to look at things again. Right. That's not a no. That's me. It's that's not my evaluation and you anyone on the board can correct me is that seemed like the road work and everything else entailed made it a
little bit less appetizing and that's why they moved on. So that's what I interpreted. So is that I would take it as probably cost prohibitive for them. It's not a yes or
no. Doesn't matter. I don't know. I'm just asking the questions. I'm just asking the questions because I live there and I just don't feel like I have a say really in anything that goes on. I don't. Um and so, but
um I just hope that Martin can stay especially down the road, the small community that we are with little hounds and gardens and nice area, homey. I mean, I like the the houses look beautiful. They do. They They would fit,
you know, they're pretty. So, I I like how they looked, but I just don't want it to be built up there. So, I hope you guys understand that and go with that. You guys hold
power. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. my face. I think it just gets very long. And just your name and address, please, sir. Uh Jeff, 17 Rock Lane. Uh, one of the questions I have is, uh, when you
were talking about, um, were the instrument going to build it for the, um, for the water, um, that I call that thing, I think, is they're going to make it for for the waterway, the property. Now, he said, um, that that will be responsible for
the town to maintain that be up to the private ownerships to do that. Um, so what happens if they don't take care of that and keep that up to date? What happens to the runoff or anything like that?
Everything all the construction will be signed off by engineers will be overseen by the town and there's also have to be a plan in place for maintenance of the on-site structures that will be recorded in the town and then the local enforcement would have jurisdiction over
that whether it be building inspector or conservation. Okay. Any questions Mr. Richie? Is that Yes. I I just want to make sure there's if I misstate something. No, no. The um
uh the first to to address the first comments. Um we have no control over the log cabin law anymore. That's off the table. So there'd be unless I can't speak for what their future plans are, but we're we're not doing anything on that. And with the remaining land we
have left, we can only put two duplexes on it per zoning without relief um from the zoning board for reduction lot size or such like that. And we have no interest or no need to do that. I mean, it's a that's what we're going
with. And if the board felt comfortable with if they felt the need to condition any such approval that there would only be one duplex on each of these lots in perpetually, that that would be that would be fine. Um, with regards to the storm water management system
maintenance, um, yes, there is an an operation and maintenance plan that's been filed with the town. Um and that would be require a requirement in perpetuity by the land owners to maintain and it would be
recorded as part of on the deeds of these properties as well as an incumbrance basically that the land owners are required to maintain the stormwater management system and if there was a concern the town would have enforcement action on that because that's also on file with the town
through the sport the stormwater permitting program. Thank you. Mhm. Is there anybody else online that wishes to comment, question? No hands raised or anything? No, not seeing anything. Any other
members of the board? Any comments, questions, concerns? Mr. Richie, anything else you would like to add? Um just with regards on the subdivision, I know one thing we haven't discussed and I don't know if it's takes place in the board setting or following with staff is the uh the type of shity that
would be placed on the road. Um preferably it would be for the town to to pull the lot if that satisfies the the cost. I don't know if uh Jared is opined on the cost we provided but that would be that would be the the the best
um option. So to to answer that, Jared did I spoke with him today and he he was fine with the posit. So and that would be our proposal for the for the formal shity would be to hold one of the lots until the roadways up to substantial compliance. We wouldn't be able to pull any permits or
or sell that until such time as the roads up to compliance. Paul, that's in our decision that we put in or is that that's within your juris ability. That's one of the shity guarantees is you can preserve a lot, hold a lot, could also
accept cash, which again they've given us a a cost estimate for it. So you'd have that which could either be the bond or cash. It's either bond, cash or the lot. The lot itself or collateral. Collateral.
It's collateral. And that'll just be listed in our conditions. Correct. Yes, you have to. It would there there were forms uh for shity. There's a number with subdivisions. There were a handful
of forms you will need to sign if this is approved. Um, and one of which is uh the type of shy and it'll spell out the the the uh the lot that would need to be held until the roadway is to a
certain level usually before it's the level before it's final. So I guess I'll ask the board does anybody have a preference on what type of shity we would accept? They are proposing we accept the use the lot
as placeholder until the street is built. No, I think holding lots worked for sure this project. The hope is that we never have to use it. So, correct. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Also,
Rob, are you good with that? I'm good with it. So, another question. So again, it's been mentioned that the the log cabinet parcels, it's already been sold. Yes, that's what we did the ANR plan for. Correct. So you have two remaining
lots. If this is approved, you're doing the duplexes. If it were not approved, you would only be able to operate within those two remaining lots. Correct. Okay. So the whole the four things that's completely off the table at this point, right? Correct. That was part of our alternative
analysis where we arrived at this at this scenario. And again, I I if it were to be denied, you would be looking to definitely go with a single family at least. I would or I don't know for sure
what we would what we would do. Um, one one scenario would be larger single family houses with 80 use on each of accessory dwelling units on each of them as is allowed by state law and three of by laws as well. Okay, that would be one one option.
Okay, thank you. It's the only thing that has come to my mind is we only have six members here tonight. I don't know if that affects any if you're wanting us to close or vote on this tonight for the special permit. We do need five five out of the
six. Five out of the six. Exactly. On the special permit. Correct. Can I just talk with a couple, Mr. Chair? We could close the public hearing and then do a vote at our next session if we wanted to do that. Correct. That'll be contingent on um our
other vendor member reviewing the meeting and completing them all informed. And for your information, June 3rd's our next meeting. Not a bad day just just take the training and driving driving to go by train.
I know. I used to do that. I'm working now delayed. I can't do that. Well, when I was in my 20s. So Paul, while they're talking this over just for the conditions
for the vote, would you recommend it or waiverss as a package? I think you could do it as a package. I think I'm So we have the waiverss. We have the vote on the definitive plan. We have the special permit for the duplex.
I'm thinking more just the conditions on the waiverss will go on the definitive plan. Um Mr. did said they would be up it would be fine with having a condition of one duplex in perpetuity on each lot and
that's all I have written down. Oh, easement easement would go on with a plan also. I would say yes cuz the road's part of the defendant. Correct. If if I may, could I counter the idea that a duplex
would be the only allowed use in perpetuity? Would we not want it to be able to potentially be another type of building? Like the a maximum of one duplex was the the intention there. Not necessarily
saying it has to be a duplex, just saying you couldn't try to subdivide it and do something later so the parcel couldn't be broken up. Yeah, that's what that's that would be the intent of what I was presenting with that as an option. Okay.
As long as the language says like the parcel wouldn't be divided or broken up, but not the use on it. Does that make one duplex on the existing parcel? Steve, your your concern is that you don't want to keep it from being a single family at some point in the
future. Is that right? Okay. No more than two units on each parcel. That's been proposed. That's acceptable. I think that's that's fair. That's a little cleaner. And then we did speak outside. We'd like to go ahead with the votes tonight on
both the special permit and the subdivision. Very good. I'll ask one more time before we close any public hearings. Any members of the public on the computer? I don't see any board members. Any other questions? Before I would entertain a motion to
close the public hearing for definitive plan one and SP 2119 Rockland chair, can I just want to confirm sorry because I wasn't sure that they what the shity was going to be. I just want to take a look at the shity to
make sure uh what we say about holding lots. I know we did it for the pine. I'm not sure. Was it Pine Street? I don't remember.
Pine tree had a charity on it for like one of the two lots or something. Yeah, I just want to ensure that that we can just do that. It's okay just to do one lot. I haven't done that
before. And of course, I'm very I'm trying to make Okay, here we go. [Applause] Maybe to get you a mouse to come down here, Paul. Right. The trackpad is not held down here. Almost there.
Just checking the document Yeah, very suspenseful. Sorry everybody. need some music. I can hear my coaching. We certainly need to revise this subdivision grant, but some communities will say you have
to have at least two lots but I I'm not seeing that here but we so I think we can we can do that. We'll also need a covenant just indicating the conditions by which then we would then we would be eligible then to release that lot sequence of things we're likely
going to have the road pretty much well built before we start on the lots anyway. So if you had to if you had to hold both of them to start, we could always come back in to request a release on one of them if something came up and then we post something in charity for the remaining work on the on the road
for the for the other lot. That's how I've seen it done in the past if you need just to just to be safe if you wanted to hold both of them um as shy at this time. If you're comfortable with that and for the sake of less dead air. No, I think
that's that's reasonable. Paul, you good with that? Sure. So, I'll go back chair to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for definitive plan one and special permit 21 for 19 Rock Lane. So, moved.
Second. We have a motion and a second. We're going to do a roll call vote. Tim, yes. Steve, yes. Bridget, yes. Eric, yes. Rob, yes. Public hearing is now closed. Is there any discussion for the
Mr. Chair? I don't think you voted on that. I mean, any discussion? The first thing I believe we be voting on would be the waiverss for the definitive plan. There's seven waiverss that they requesting that we went over earlier.
Does anybody want to discuss them, go over them, or make a motion approve the waiverss as printed? I'm good with Mr. R. I didn't hear you, Rob. Sorry. I'm good with Mr. R. Motion to approve
the waiverss as a group. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Tim, yes. Steve, yes. Bridget, yes. Eric, yes. Rob, yes. And I will vote
yes. We can take either one that the board wishes. I would say let's stick with the definitive plan and the waiverss as we discussed would be the both lots as shy an easement on the road for the
public and the stipulation that there will only be two units two dwelling units what was the Mr. ratios. No more than two units. No more than two units on each perpetuity. In perpetuity motion approve the conditions
as a group. Second. So it's a motion to approve definitive plan one with stated conditions. Standard conditions and the ones mentioned. Second. We have a motion and a second on
defendive plan one after coffee. Roll call. Tim, yes. Steve, yes. Bridget, yes. Eric, yes. Rob, yes. No, vote. Yes. Last thing for our vote on this
will be for the special permit. Are we going to duplicate the conditions or just our standard conditions on the special permit? You can just do standard conditions. Standard conditions on the special permit. And Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. So, this is the special permit relief is to allow
duplexes instead of a single family. Correct. Essentially, that is the only piece of the special permits. Correct. Correct. And so, you would be using the your general special permit criteria. So, um, benefits outweigh the the
negatives that Does anybody want to go through the special permit criteria before we vote on this? I got them all. Again, it's just to allow duplex in this zone. Motion approve special permit SP21 with standard conditions. Second.
We have a motion and a second. Tim, yes. Steve, no. Bridget, yes. Eric, yes. Rob, yes. Yes.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. When you're all set typing, I believe we have review and vote on the draft decisions and discuss the draft decision for SP19. Going to pull that right up. Thank you.
So, I uh followed up with some of the um remaining questions on that. And um just pull this up, pull it up online here. There were really two two remaining. simple one was first one was
kind of simple which was um best practices uh for um fertilizing and so I was I worked with uh John Thomas the conservation agent and uh UMass Amhurst has a of course they have their agricultural program and they have
best practices for fertilizing use of herbicides pesticides so made a specific reference to that program um so let me go ahead share this. Then the other one was uh dealing with you recall that there
were three that the applicant offered three affordable units and uh and as I was working with him, he indicated his interest in doing a payment in
loop. And as you probably are aware, um when we passed this, uh bylaw 20ome years ago, we never set up the trust or the trust fund. So, uh fortunately, uh working with town council, uh they did
identify that while we don't have the affordable housing trust yet, there are a couple of of uh funding sources or funds that we can set up legally and essentially act as a hold until we do set it up. But um there is a certain
type of account. I'll just read this uh so I can read it into the record and um I worked with spoke with the applicant and with Ed Bailey, our new building commissioner, to make sure he was okay with it um because there's a a trigger
mechanism on this too when we would get the funding. And so, um, you'll see this highlighted. Uh, pursuant to section 1751910 of the zoning bylaw, which is our affordable housing bylaw, the applicant shall provide to the town a
sum of money calculated as provided for in said n section 19-10 in lie of constructing affordable housing on site or providing affordable uh units offsite. send fund shall be deposited into a Mass General Law uh chapter 44
section 53K account or such other account as may be determined by the town to be appropriate to be used solely for the development or creation of affordable housing including the purchase of affordable housing restrictions and if the town creates a municipal uh affordable housing trust in
accordance with master law chapter 44 section 55C any funds remaining from the payments made here shall be paid over to set trust. The total amount to be paid to the town shall be $600,000 in perimeter.
That's $200,000 per unit, which is in our bylaw. So that's $600,000 to be paid on the following schedule. Uh $200,000 to be deposited to the issuance of a final certificate of
occupancy for each block of 10 units. So essentially he's trying to build this in three phases of 10 uh 10 units each. So five duplexes each. So after the first 10 unit but before the issuance of the
final unit uh for the uh first 10 there would have to be a payment of 200,000 and then so forth through the rest of it. So that trigger would result in the funds going into this new account set up
and that money whether it stays there or gets transferred into the affordable housing trust whenever it's set up uh can only be used for affordable housing purposes which is the intent of the bylaw. And we will be working with town
council to get the trust the trust itself set up and the fund itself. But we need to do both. And what could we use it for? I guess is so you could use it so for an affordable housing trust
will determine ultimately the uses. But often times with trusts affordable housing trusts, it can be used for um de construction of new housing, uh renovations of affordable housing. It can be used for purchasing of land that'll be used for affordable housing.
it can help. Some communities will help um with income um uh for um affordable housing units. So, there's a there's a wealth of things that it can be used for, but the trust has to figure that out, determine it, but it can only
everything has to center around affordable housing. Yes. So, Paul, this is something I'm trying to think of like to Alan's point like what we would use it for. This is something that could in theory be used by like the
Northern Housing Authority. Yes. Correct. Non typically nonprofits will be will use it and state housing authorities will too. And the trust will set up exactly what we can use it for. Yes. Yeah. They'll have to. It's part of
their regulations. The guideline and the trustees would be set by whom? Typically, it's the select board. So there is a state rule for it. The I believe it's the select board that'll that determines the the trust
and they would just select the trustees and the trustees do whatever within the regulations they want. They could be I've got to look back at the the requirements for it but they they will make uh appointments to this trust. So they might say we want to it it some I
believe some trust will actually have representatives of the planning board on it. So maybe what's time frame to set it up? What's it's going to take a little while I would assume? Yeah. But um for this particular fund,
uh it shouldn't and we don't have to go to town meeting to set up this this uh Mass General law 50 uh 40 chapter 44 section 53k account. So I I tal I've also been working with the town accountant on this. So So he's aware of
it. So, it shouldn't take long. I mean, but we should have it in place before he gets to that first final CO or that first CO before uh you know, the first 10 units. And what would
happen if we didn't have it set up? I guess it's just we would have a check and nowhere to deposit it. Exactly. Well, or they don't issue. Uh, I mean there's a few things, but let's not go there quickly. It looks like we can do it in time. Yes, absolutely. And and
again, we're we we have to get the it's time for us to get the the trust set up in the account. And and just think about that. If we get $600,000 in that, that's a pretty good It's a good start. It's a good start. and and as we're as you know
we're seeing more you know non 40B proposals for units this could be a good alternative to on-site's always great but you know this might you know if this fund builds
up then someone like the housing authority could take advantage of it I just googled how much interest did $600,000 earn it earns 5% the interest alone would be 30 grand. Wow. So, we could run it like an or not hard, but
like an endowment style. Yeah. I'm sure they wouldn't say no to 30 grand a year. The interest works with I just said 5%. Yeah. Right. Is kind of. Yeah. It's
close. Yeah. Board members, any other questions, comments? No, sounds good. We don't need to vote on this. We just have to to sign. Just to sign. Yeah. And I've got it.
Can you scroll to the pesticide section just satisfy curiosity? Sure. I'll I'll read that. And Paul, you said we're going to make this standard in all of our decisions. It's your I think it's a really it I think it's a good condition to add
through a lot of them, but the applicant shall use best management practices for the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers pursuant to the UMass extension turf program. I like at least having something to reference, not just saying best practices. At least it's directing them
and they have to I mean, is there any do they have to submit any paperwork? I guess now to show that they're conforming to the mass turf program. You know what I'm saying? Well, it's a condition in here. So, it is telling them how to do I mean this is some
pretty straightforward things, best practices, but you know, as part of our um you know enforcement, this is here for them to for us as a as a tool if we found that they weren't using it.
Rob, did you have a question? Well, I think you guys may answer. I just wanted to clarify that. But the UMass Extension Turf Program that this is where we would find a a documented iteration of what those best management practices are, right? Correct. Okay. So,
they're on paper. That's kind of what I was trying to make sure, right? It's a brochure with 15 sections and goes all the way to appendix G. So, yeah. Yeah. I'm not going to read it the second as I first read the thing. miss management
pages. My first thought is he had what are those and you know kept going. So I just want to make sure there is something documented some says what those are good but and I I just recommend leaving it general like this because when they add things to it or change things we don't it doesn't cause
the the uh the decision to be out of date. No, I agree with you on that. Very good. Everybody good with that? Uh that was the last item on our agenda. I do have a couple things if we maybe take it under planning board business.
Um like to talk about a strategy going forward for bringing the recotification and maybe changing that name um to the fall town meeting since it did not pass obviously last night and we do have a year and a half of work
into it. Um, before I have ball talk, my first idea was to break it down, break the new bylaw down by sections, maybe a section or two at a time, whatever makes sense, and distribute it over a whole bunch of meetings and only bite off a
little bit at a time, hold a public hearing on the sections, and it won't be, you know, 4 hours of us going through the bylaw. We can add it on to meetings coming up. Um, I don't think it'll be a big lift even if we have a
pretty busy agenda. That was my first idea of how to go about it. I I don't think we have I actually think overall that's a good plan. Alan, I don't think we have to decide it tonight. Maybe we'll talk about it again at the next meeting after we digest it.
Uh, anybody else have any ideas um going forward? I would I would think it might be proper to make any changes to the uses table separately and
prior if that makes sense so that when we introduce the recotification we're not trying to explain what changes were in the uses table also. Yeah that that was something we talked about too. So, um I I so I did talk with Mark today and he did, you know, one of
the comments we heard last night was we should adopt this separately. Mark and I agree we should not do that because we could end up there was a town he mentioned that did that and one section failed and when one
section failed the whole thing just went to pieces. So I would just say Steve to that point too with with calling out the use table separately we might want to also as as you know definitions probably we probably want to have that with us
too because so much of as you recall from our conversations we were going back and forth what does that mean so but yeah use tables for sure would be it's only would have to be sure um Paul I know the work with Mark was
funded through a grant. I assume that is used up. Yeah. Yeah. It it it's ended. But Mark did say I was going to say is the expectation the work is done but the next presentation is on us. Is that the short version? He'll he said he would he
would do some pro bono work. Um, I don't know what that is, but I would assume that would be, you know, review if we make any substantive changes, but I I wouldn't expect him to come down here and present. Can we nominate someone to do that? I'm
kidding. Nominate yourself, you know. You want me up there? Come on. Um, so I think I can work up, you know, obviously right now we don't know when the fall town meeting will be and obviously once we do that then we have
to have the official public hearings but we could certainly start scheduling workshops lack of a better term workshop for them and like maybe we get it through get us through all the sections make any changes that we think then
maybe hold a bigger hearing addressing the whole bylaw at once. And I don't know if it's going to come to the point where we should do a group meeting with the select board in pincom or at least one of us will present it to them
individually. I would love us all in the room all discussing it. Um did we do that? I think so. We'll try to do it again. They weren't all there. Yeah. But um however there were some members who changed their votes from their committee votes
to the floor and both boards all every board has new members so it's not starting over but it's kind of like starting over. Um so I guess maybe Paul you can work on an idea when we timeline and then maybe next meeting and the meeting after we can start scheduling
what we want to put on what meeting. And I I think this would also make sense for us to think about who we want to invite from the public. Certainly the two people who spoke last night. Uh I I know I have one of their emails, the other I think I do, but that person's
not responded, but I think since they had spoken up and you know, and obviously showed an interest in it, we should bring them here and ask them or some way of of providing whether it's emails, you know, however it works in their schedule. for them to provide
feedback that we have a chance to respond to. I think we're doing a pretty good job reaching out. I I I am not aware of any other way we can reach out more. Maybe we can use the new senior center sign more advertising members, advertising meetings. I mean,
Mr. Chair, yes. Um, we also could if we wanted to, I know, um, either I think Paul or Brian put out the Facebook events through the T the Norton, you can just make our meetings Facebook events, so they're also there. Yeah.
Um, um, Right. We did that for NBTA. I I have to admit, I struggled how to make recodification remotely attractive to people. Right. Right. I I I think first thing we need to change the name not recottification but hon something
something want to get people there. My only other item for tonight was a loosely held rule that we don't really follow. It kind of came up tonight. I didn't bring it up. I believe it's listed on our web page of we really don't want to be accepting documents on
1:00 on the day of the meeting and we're not going to we're still going to accept them but we want to encourage applicants to get them to us I don't know the Wednesday we've had this conversation 10 times we can't make them give us
material ahead of the meeting but we can strongly encourage and maybe we when we continue the meetings and we're looking for we continue the public hearings and we're looking for new information. Maybe I'll just try to do a better job saying could you please have
this to us by a certain date cuz I know the the stuff we got this afternoon I only looked at quick enough. I'm not sure it's fair for us not to you know be able to look at it a little bit before the meeting if we want to or need to. Yes. Um, are we online if we actually
set a deadline next time before a meeting and then um, you know, after that thing? There's just no guarantee that it's going to get counted or I it's listed it is listed on our web page. I forget exactly. I think we might have changed it at one point what it says. It's always been a loose policy.
Um, I don't think there's anything we can Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I think I'll say I was not good in enforcing this when I was the chair. I think our position would be to make sure that they understand that we're trying
to get materials we'll say a week in advance of our meetings. Um if they don't the correlary is if the board does not feel they've had time to review the materials in advance they may move to continue
without discussion. as in if you don't give it to us far out of advance, you just we might tell you to go home. I'm I'm comfortable with that. Or even maybe it doesn't have to be a week, maybe it's, you know, the Wednesday before. I'll take anybody's opinion on this. I
would just I'll try in the future to say yes, we want this material well in advance in the next meeting. Yeah. And typically when I'm working with applicants, I tell them, get it to us by Thursday when agenda goes out. right when the agenda goes out or at least by
Friday because it's not fair for the board. The board needs the weekend to look at a lot of this. And I will say today I I didn't even realize that for some reason Open Gov didn't notify me. So I need to check the
with with both applications neither one I wasn't flagged for either one. So I didn't even know they were in there. I might have an idea as to why. Yeah, I think I do too. Yeah. So, we'll have to fix that and open it up. I'm good for anything though that kind
of sets a deadline. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Second. Yeah. Um trying to get good at that. Um I wouldn't support anything that kind of sets a deadline after which, you know, we aren't going to flat say no. If they come up with some small thing, you know,
the deadline, we could be reasonable on that. But this is something I have to do my project work actually, you know, protect my teams from getting stuff dropped on at the last minute. and it's effective that you have that date and if someone comes in with a huge pile of stuff the last minute you're going to
say no we have this deadline it's right here it it kind of strengthens your position I think going forward we'll tend to lean this way what we're talking about and we'll lean to what Tim was saying we'll we're not going to not take any new information on a public hearing
but it's up to our discretion of what any board member wants to say do not feel comfortable and really it's any time if you say you do not feel comfortable voting on this right now. We can as long as we have enough time, we can continue it to a next meeting. I think we're all saying the same thing
in different ways. Is there a way can we word it somewhere where it's really down and make sure it's really worded that that is how we're going to operate. I think the policy is there. It's just making sure that the applicants read it
and understand it. It's not something that Yeah, it's not something that uh we're not the only town that does it. Other towns do the same thing. Um and other towns struggle with developers who
also don't read the don't follow it. I just heard somebody muttering and it wasn't a putting it on the application to make sure that's fine. So, what was uh we we just need to check where on open gov we could put it and of course
once they've hit the submit button they might not see it again but reminders are reminders. So, um I I will tell you that you know I get my experience doing it with my team. So, people do blow by that policy and sometimes get pretty argumentative. So,
it's good if you have communicated it very well. Make sure that they were aware of it and then if they blow it off, it is what it is. Very good. Well, it's only 8:30. Do you guys want to start going through our
subdivision control law so Paul doesn't have problems uh locating things or is there another motion? Motion to second it. We have a motion in a second. Tim, yes.
Steve, yes. Bridget, yes. Eric, yes. Rob, yes. And I'll vote yes. Good evening. Good night. Thank you.