good evening everybody Welcome to the planning board's meeting of February the 10th again this is a hybrid public meeting members of the public are welcome to participate in person or remotely in person we are at the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street you can
join online using the zoom link available in the meeting agendo or meeting ID 6389 29106 the meeting will also be available on Norton cable access and Norton media Center's YouTube page for future sessions please feel free to
email questions to the board ahead of the meeting to Brian carmichel Town staff so they can be forwarded to the members and shared ahead of the meeting so without of the way we'll dive into our agenda today we do have a couple of items for planning board
business and policies um I know Paul had emailed the group asking about a potential joint meeting on Thursday with the select board for an executive session this would be just to get a joint update from
Council on the progress of the Hill Street discussion um so I think they did notice the meeting but if we are not going to have Quorum that does not necessarily need to be there um do we feel like I know I've
gotten a couple of notes from people saying they would or would not be able to attend do we feel like we're going to have Quorum there it kind of it started originally as Tim is going to go and then it just kind of widen from there so yes it has been posted but if it's not Quorum then we wouldn't officially
call the meeting got it so do we feel like we're going to have Quorum I'm available to be there to get up I'm available I will be there okay it sounds like we'll probably have Quorum so we'll plan on that um and
we'll get the update on that matter uh in terms of bills and warrants um if we want Brian has one bill for I believe $25 or something that he'll pass around if anybody wants to take a look Rob yes one quick question the notice I got said
the notice I got said the meeting was 5:30 or 6 oh my god um do you know which one of those is this six six okay thanks yeah okay don't need to talk apologies for
the microphones everybody it's a new audio setup this evening so we're all working through it together I think if I put this midpoint between you and I we're good it's good yeah it's fine okay um we do have some minutes to approve but unless anybody's eager to get that out of the way I think I'll
save those to the end any objections okay so the first item in our discussion section of our agenda uh is a discussion of our zoning bylaw recodification uh so thank you
uh to council who's been assisting us on this process Mr Bowski uh I know you had it uh designs on kind of a workshop and you thought wanted to kind of go first so we weren't too tired to get through it with you so
um I'll seed the floor to you to give your introduction and then we'll get going thank you Mr chairman good evening Members Mark peski for the record my office is in conquered Massachusetts I'm delighted to be here in your beautiful new town hall this is a great Improvement I'm sure I remember
the old one so I think I'll try and ask you get the mic a little bit closer to you thanks I'm getting the eyes from the camera gu all right good job so I'm going to propose to walk you through where we are tonight um I have uh on the
screen up there draft six which is dated the 14th of December um in I know we circulated a draft four in October uh I took that and gave it to my office manager Ruth Terry who has been only through 40 of these before and she
meticulously Combs it to make sure that the numbers are correct and the format is correct and she puts up with all of my inability to do that and that basically is what produced draft six so that you're you if you didn't see five that was an internal document between me
and Ruth um I I also had a couple of things that were provided to me by first of all our last meeting I know Laura gave me a list of cleanup items which I did incorporate into draft six um I so I think we're close with draft six to
having a document that would be ready for public hearing and I'm going to walk you through it tonight the idea that I have as a takeaway at the end of the evening is that and I'll be taking notes so go slow um we need to make two
decisions one is um is this draft six ready to go to draft seven if not what needs to change I think some of it usually at this point in the game it's it's more small changes than it is big changes because we've already had a
number of drafts in which there were big changes so having worked with you now for the better part of a year my idea I hope you think it's acceptable is that Paul and Laura and I would go through the next level of
format U you know topographical changes that need to be made in order for this to get to the Finish Line the second issue and um I thank Steve for his contributions is that there are a lot of
things that are popping out of the um you know the side stage that I don't feel capable of making the decisions on if there's a a major topic being introduced that isn't in what I've provided to you already it may or may not be beyond the scope of of a
recodification that's level one decision if it is within the scope of a recodification do you want to do it and if you do want if you do want to do it how do we get to the finish line and perhaps we could repeat the process again this time with Steve uh I think in
order to do that Steve I would like you to just give me a a and the committee a list of the substantive changes that you'd like to propose so that we can treat it as a sushi menu and they can decide whether it's time to do it it's
time to bank it we can come back next year and do it or or what the fate of of your proposal will be all of the documents have been submitted I think for the better part of maybe a month now
y I mean we can we can run through the list my my main uh topic is is the uses table uh most of the the actual bylaw itself is is perfectly fine and acceptable you've done a great job um yeah just the uses table is what I'd
like to go through as a group so um why don't we make it a plan that the use table gets distributed with today's date to all the members Steve's Used table and that we'll plan on scheduling a meeting just to go through that document
you can lead the charge okay I'll be taking notes more than trying to direct things and when we're done with that meeting we'll have a consensus use table that sound that sounds fine to me thank you that's great that's a great great deal of progress there okay so I'm just going to walk you through this remind
you what we changed what we didn't change I'm going to stop at the end of every section if you want to ask a question um just put a hold on something and we'll go from there so remember and and if there's not a lot of changes or important changes I'm not going to
belabor the obvious so with regard to the use um the section one material U this is I think the only thing that we've really saved here from your earlier version is 1.6 amendments the rest of this is pretty boilerplate
language um you can see the numbering system that I'm using I'm preserving 175 but it only appears at the uh main uh 1.0 2.0 3.0 captions the that makes General code generally happy um if you
can continue to use their numbering system um I might shorten up the purpose Clause here I think I I had a case decided uh while I was u in the fall uh called um
pedo R RT uh in the pedo case I represented a u a private defendant who got permission to build an 885,000 foot R&D facility in Watertown the pedo people claimed they had standing because
the bylaw in Watertown said one of the purposes of the bylaw was to promote uh preservation of property value that's not generally a recognized grounds for standing and I argued to the appeals court that just because it's in the purpose Clause doesn't mean you get
standing there's plenty of cases from the Supreme Judicial Court that say you don't have standing if your only claim for injury is the preservation of property value and the court agreed with me they called this this kind of language in the purpose Clause um fluff you know just to sort of give a general
overview of purpose not to create standing for individuals so I I I'd be tempted if anything here to take 1.2 out and cut it back to the bare bone um because a lot of people read this and think it actually creates rights when in
fact it doesn't at all and the P the pedo case uh really confirms that yeah so I'll obviously at town meeting taking it away as a we took this out when doesn't necessarily carry that weight uh
yeah well now that that case has been actually cited by the appeals court in another case sense so I'm going to put it down as a discussion item what you might see next time is a more cut and dry 1.2 that that that'd be my
DS all right so that pretty much outlines the major changes and I know you've got an MBTA discussion coming up at 8:15 that pretty much outlines the major changes in section one Mr barosi can we just take a quick look at
1.63 yep look at it the last four words um unless the adoption of such amendment is recommended by the planning board in its report thereon can we just end that
sentence at planning board because if there's not an actual rep I don't know what report we're referring to and if there's not a report I don't want to get caught out on a technicality so can I can answer that generally Paul puts together a report for anything we recommend for town meeting okay but even
if something is rejected that we want to bring back is there a report subsequent to that our report would be we want to put this on town meeting okay yeah so any action that you take whether it's recommend for recommend against it there's a report to select board got it
thank you yeah I think this all stems from chapter 48 section 5 I know that under 485 the planning board you're not used to be required to make a recommendation for town meeting to consider it but they changed that because planning boards weren't doing that uh now the rule is that unless you
make a recommendation and it can be in the form of a report um the town meeting can't vote on it unless 21 days have have transpired so if you get if you get the town meeting 14 days after your public hearing and there's no recommendation the moderator rules it
out of order but though that's that seldom happens all right I'm going to treat this like the budget of town meeting can I move on to Artic section two great you to enlarge it just a little bit so here's bigger on our
space I can sure I'm sorry I'm old tell me about it with you um you're not old is me it's my birthday [Music] tomorrow let's go with that how's that better yeah
okay all right so down to section two districts I don't think we eliminated any districts here um trying to remember but that's not I I don't I know in one of the towns we we eliminated two I think it was Wakefield do we still have that issue
about the is it Wetlands or Water Resource Protection District which one was the Sticky Wicket it's the Wetland right yeah that's do we have a resolution on that or is it still in the wind well I've had conversations with conservation agent who was fine with us
removing it since this doesn't if it if there are wetlands concom has jurisdiction over it you know it's very possible this will be picking up areas without Wetlands that we would be applying Wetland protections
on and another discussion was we have a district without a map that was basically the there is a map it's all narrative it that goes on for three pages then you know Westerly but I don't first of all that's probably written a
long time ago and those lines probably changed and then even more importantly I wouldn't get rid of anything until and unless there was a concom bylaw being sponsored at town meeting so that you had a local Wetlands bylaw adopted as a
general bylaw that's 50% plus one vote that could take its place that's clearly the intent of the town is to regulate more stringently than the uh 310 CMR uh you know 10 10 point what is it 1.5 I
can't remember the number so so from your from your opinion this would fall into the leave it alone for now is concom ready with a substitute General bylaw no yeah it's a lot under sort of outside the scope of a recodification
mass conser Association of conservation commissions has plenty of model stuff that can easily be red I know we'd had back and forth on it a number of times about is this enforcable etc etc so yeah that's a that's a whole that's a
different question a whole kettle of fish yeah so I would leave it in until the time when Conservation Commission is avidly supporting a substitute General bylaw and there's I mean there's so many towns that have done a great job in this
that you can literally pick your your choice off a shelf and and see what other towns have had to say my town uh calls the Conservation Commission the Natural Resources Commission and they do a great job um other than that I think
we've stuck with the districts that you had flood plane uh groundwater or or Water Resources protection uh the marijuana overlay district and I don't think are we making any
substantive changes to the 1974 map as amended we're not changing any of the zoning districts or boundaries as part of this I don't think okay right so when I prepare the war article um somebody remind me that we should not delete the
map because I'm going to prepare the Warren article by saying in the old bylaw delete section one introduction section two District section three definitions it's just going to march on through the major captions and then it'll say substitute therefore the major
chapter headings in the new bylaw and if I include the map section I'm going to have have to um dance my way around it so I'll just make a note to keep the old map yeah and I don't think we need to make
any map changes correct not as part of this process good okay all right anything else on section two so section three is the use regulations um and we're going to go
through Steve's use table uh at a forthcoming meeting so I don't plan to pull up the use table this evening knowing that you've got a short schedule for me but um the major things that we've added here um I I've just taken
the liberty of adding 25 parking spaces to the special permit for certain uses 3.2.1 I believe that they actually appeared in two different places but when I checked the language it seemed like they could easily be merged by having uh the 25 or more parking spaces
added to the 10,000 square ft increase either uh or uh or one of which would trigger the need for a special permit in the use table so when you read the use table you see you might see a yes but if you check it back to 3.2.1 and it has 25
parking spaces or 10,000 additional square feet it needs a special permit and that's the way you seem to be doing business today yeah the the or is definitely the yeah status quo um under the accessory use provision there are some that are listed in uh the use table
uh but the land court has taken the land court has really finessed this issue in the last five years or so um the rule of thumb for the main part of the use table the principal uses is that if it's not listed you can't do it that's that's standard 101 zoning practice so I had a
case actually in Charlton for the planning board where a gentleman proposed a million square feet of marijuana space um 860 was grow 140 was manufacturing and processing but the bylaw didn't say that accessory uses in
the agricultural District included manufacturing and processing at a marijuana grow facility so we argued you can't do it doesn't say you can do it and the lcard said well how how was the town supposed to anticipate every accessory use um if it's consistent with
the overall definition for an accessory use that is um um typ typically customarily and subordinate then you can do that too if it's if it's normally associated with the principal use and it follows that general rule and it's on the same
property then you can do pretty much anything as an accessory use so I've tried to you know keep uh consistent with uh land use practice at least here which is to allow it there are some in the use table that are specifically listed uh but anything else not listed
would still be eligible because um it it would fit into the process um and then home occupations is a separate section uh of the use regulations I don't think we we toyed I think with adopting a do you have customers clients
pupils uh or or non-resident employees coming to the premises when I Revisited the current system that you have that's pretty much what it says so I don't I didn't see the need at the end of the day to change it and like I kept what have intact and then the solid waste
facility is currently a provision in the bylaw uh I know that in one town I worked in recently which is Irving uh They too had this I didn't see the need to repeat it and I got my hand slapped by the AG's office uh they said it's in
the old bylaw put it in the new bylaw because there's a specific date in this provision which is 1987 uh that's a trigger so you you you you can't go back before or change anything after 1987 you're sort of stuck in time with what you allowed in 1987
and that's in the general laws that's the use section everything else falls into the category of the individual use table entries and that's forthcoming attraction um I did tweak the use table
um and the current version is in Paul's hands uh I don't I it didn't change in terms of Dimensions I think the only thing I really changed is some of the footnotes which no longer applied uh when the old numbering system went by the boards uh there was no need to
repeat it in the footnotes and so I I think I took eight footnotes and reduced it to maybe two or three that's it that's the only change to the dimensional regulations the rest of it is pretty much what you have today um which includes the wetlands and waterways Provisions here although
there's a later one coming now this is just in terms of calculating lot area lot shape factor I know you recommended we get rid of it and we told you we're leaving it alone yeah I I took that advice
seriously so there it is you said we could do something simpler and we said well we don't have to do the calculations so we don't care how simple it is no there's a lot of math there and I'm not a math guy so uh multiple dwellings these are sorry sorry I just go ahead before we get too far forward
um could I make a recommendation for one thing on 41 41 yeah the well 411 y um right now we only allow in the sorry in the residential Zone uh one principal permitted building
yeah could we if the board agrees change that to one principal permitted Residential Building uh I don't like that so no other buildings are allowed on a residential property even if they're allowed on the that's not what this is saying I agree with Tim it
wasn't needed it's a principal dwelling and the principal use is residential so you can't have two houses on a single property but you could have a house and an accessory building a barn a garage a shop okay but you can't have two like if
like if you have a house and you ran a daycare can you put the dayare in a separate building yes you just cannot have two principal use dwellings the principal use in residential is housing but a daycare wouldn't be a housing use no no
agreed it's a it's an accessory use but it is allowed as a separate building it's a protected do use so any do use enjoys uh the ability to look at section 4.1 for every principal permitted even
if it's even if it said you can only have one building on a lot you could as a child care facility claim do protection and ask to be a second building on that lot and have what I would call a deviation authorized under the do Amendment now that's a stretch of
the do amendment power but you can ask setting aside do sorry go ahead I I think in a lot of things we've had like there one principal building per lot if you want to have different things you got to have different Lots that's kind of like a core of what we've
looked at with a lot of different projects see I'm viewing this as principal dwelling an accessory building so you could have a separate build you just can't have two houses on a residential lot I brought up child
care because for example U my first child care visit to the appeals court first case ever was petruci versus Board of Appeals of Westwood Joe had a barn that was a historic Barn over a hundred years old and he had a daughter with an early childhood education and she didn't have a job and
he was a carpenter so he put all that together he lived on the premises in a house beautiful old house and he renovated the barn separate building way in the back and he put his daughter to work it's still there today it's called the Barnyard daycare and it has 50 kids every morning the neighbors sued us but
we won so yeah I think um yeah so I I would generally leave it alone um I think this is the the real question that when I look at this is do you want to go teeny house when I read read this I'm thinking you know do you want to
have the ability to have a second dwelling uh in which you know I can move when I'm no longer capable of managing the bigger house I mean my feelings on that would be a yes but that's not quite where I was going with it but that is a
second dwelling so I don't know if that counts as a second Residential Building so like that would that's not what I recommended here yeah and and we're already have to to account for the new state rules on Accessory dwelling units anyway so um let's see I think we do
have PR of the audience who wanted to speak but I think she'd need to get to a microphone so if you don't mind just stepping back for a second so uh she had to hand up for a minute or two so I want to make sure she uh hi Debbie Winston Elm Street you just
touched upon my question I had read that they wanted to have I don't know if it's called AUD or whatever it's called Adu would that stop uh residents who own their home putting it a what whatever he said the
state the new state rules and Paul you can correct me I Wrong are generally more permissive on residents as building accessory dwelling units especially if they're detached I think that's one of the big takeaways for Norton is that the state rules mean that you have will
essentially have to allow detached accessory dwelling units so something on the property that a relative or somebody could live in yeah that wouldn't stop it no because it's not a principal dwelling it's it's an
accessory dwelling there's size limitations in the new state law and it's viewed as something that's in addition to the principle and Rob you had a question question well I think this might my question there was a thing I read recently they were using the term granny
pods they were using the term they were using the term granny pods in the article I read and this was about um before I guess if you were wanted to build a little apartment off for your mother for your parent you know for a family member um they lifted the requirement that now you can do that it
does not have to be for family members that's exactly right you can just build that second thing around and it can't be on a special permit and okay so I I gave Paul I know a month and a half two months ago the the excerpts
from the state law that apply to adus and I circled the main substantive ones like no special permit like uh not bigger than I can't remember 900 square fet or 50% of the size of the principal dwelling and there maybe six or seven things that I circled and then I took
your existing accessory apartment bylaw and I had numbered the ones in the state law and then I put footnotes in your bylaw like this this doesn't comply or this is fine and I have you have you reached a consensus on what you want to
do on adus are you working on this exclusively with me is there a separate committee delegated to do this I'm the guy there is not a separate committee looking at adus at this time fine that's right that would cost money wouldn't it that would
but yeah you know we were fortunate we're one of the towns that did allow adus by right but they were attached there were few things that we had to change that the state said we had to do and you flagged them I know we flagged
them as well so that shouldn't be I mean we have to identify it in the warrant that that's changing but that's a state mandate and it's it actually is supposed to go into effect the end of this month so we're going to have a be the beginning of the month unless they've extended it was it early February they
probably did nobody was ready but that's okay we we haven't had an Adu you know we're if something comes in between now and May 19th we'll have to figure out how to address that so one of the early things I'll do after the meeting tonight is I'll go back look at
that cheat sheet that I gave Paul and I'll pass it along to you and I'll have a recommended bylaw we can take a crack at that as a subsequent meeting topic I don't think you were that far off to begin with it's really detached was the
big change I think for us yeah yeah yeah that was the biggest one and also the state says now you can't mandate that either prop that the property owner has to live in in either ours did right but the state said no to that now yeah so I
mean I'm working in a couple of towns right now where it's got to be your grandmother nobody else and it's all special permit you have to tear it out when she leaves or unless another family member moves in so those are the nightmare scenarios all right so I made a note to that effect oops that wasn't
good all right so the rest of section four there's that lot shape Factor again it's all pretty much what you have section five well we touched on this early in the game um this is my standard non-conformity section uh I think it's
very friendly to the average homeowner because there are certain situations in which alteration of a non-conforming single or two family will be allowed as of right they were situations in which before you might have needed a special permit you would have gotten the special
permit had you applied for it what's the point of be labor the obvious if it's that obvious give them a building permit and not a special permit but it does preserve the right for people who don't fit within the guidelines to still make an application for a special permit uh and have the zoning board of appeals
make a decision yeah and just for everybody watching either in the here in person or watching remotely we had the zoning board of appeals as part of this process with you and they were on board with this as well especially with the volume of existing non-conforming that
that we have in Norton which might not outnumber the amount of actual conforming Lots but it's probably close than we'd like to admit Paul right yeah I lived up the road in Mansfield for many years and I remember when I moved into town the lot had to be 30,000
within a two years it was 455,000 within four years it was 60,000 this is all in my neighborhood my lot bar barely qualified as a 30,000 foot lot but imagine the number of non-conforming lots created in Mansfield roughly from the period
1990 1988 to 1992 I think we counted over 12,000 so all of those lots that were created earlier in the game were still legal if you acted properly on your rights but they didn't conform with zoning and never
will so this is a really important section it really hits a lot of people and there's also a section in here now on teardowns so if you do have a house and it's on a non-conforming lot and you want to tear it down and build something better well the the new rule would be
basically you can go ahead and do that as of right if you put the same foundation in the same place and you don't increase the general uh the the gross floor area of the house U if you're going to make it bigger or you're going to move the foundation you got to get a special
permit that way all the neighbors get a voice in what happens next um also a little tweak here under abandonment or nonuse if your non-conforming structure any non-conforming structure becomes non-con uh is abandoned or not used for a period
of two years um it it loses its protected status that given the slow pace of insurance coverage and the uh otherwise complicated permitting process if that happens you can make an application to the zba for a special
permit and they can reinstate the protections of non-conformity that's a I think it's a useful tool okay uh off street parking and loading uh now we're into some general requirements that I generally didn't change I don't think Mark I'm sorry what
is 6.12 reserved for um my next edit sweep to get rid of that okay I'll find something to put there don't worry all right yeah I we just took out I think what was there before was a a loosening of the of the
table requirement for the number of spaces and I merged that into a later provision I didn't need to say it twice so I'll I'll pick something to move into there that works as a separate freestanding thing okay it won't be won't be a major change you you tend to
divide this stuff up with regard to residential versus non-residential parking requirements um in the residential section you had a couple of dinosaurs like um housing for persons uh
who are age qualified and income qualified that tends to I don't think I've seen any of that done other than under chapter 40b in 30 years so just you know call a spade a spade there's no need to list that it's just taking up
space mark in that table where it says same next to multi-dwelling [Music] residential uses yeah what is meant by same uh it's it's meant to be multi-dwelling residential uses okay yeah so it means all single
family dwellings right like it says right above it yeah yeah I could I could be clearer there I'll fix that could just paste it in what's the point of the column if it's just saying yeah it's your old column I I probably don't need it I'll delete the
column delete it okay that's fine in isolation I went wait a second most we have definitions anyway so yeah all right so then you've got non-residential parking requirements I had given you eastn to look at these are
kind of a mishmash it's not you got a lot of things that are lumped together are they all to be exactly treated the same way just look at Residential Care public assembly camps um homes for the agent hospitals
nursing commercial recreational facilities there a lot lot of things to say one space for each two beds or two persons or of rated design capacity east's tends to be a lot more precise it breaks it down into categories and
subcategories that are in many many many cases different think of the difference between a doctor's office and a business office when was the last time you went to the doctor and there weren't 10 people ahead of you in line now when you go into a business office you you've got an appointment you're in your out
so those 10 people that are ahead of you in the doctor's office have cars in the parking lot generally speaking business offices are parked at one space per 200 square feet I'm sorry that's a medical office and the business office would be one
space per 250 or 300 Square fet so you want to be able to break that down into a more precise calculation and the good news is that if you don't like that and you think you can do better there's a provision at the end of the section that says just ask us for a special permit we're not any more
interested in building an ocean of asphalt where it's not needed than you are so if you can convince us that you don't need all that parking we don't you won't need a variance anymore which is a vast Improvement because a variance is very difficult to get Mark uh I did send
out a document that had a A reduced parking requirement table um we don't have to go through it right now I guess but another time could we look at that more specifically let's put it on the agenda with your use table okay awesome okay I guess Mark one question on this is does this fall within a
recodification I'm not a stickler okay so I mean I'd rather have a good product than an unchanged product if what I left intact was bad so I'm I'll I'll tell you when
I'm getting nervous the the ultimate barometer is not me it's the voters at town meeting if if they see that you've changed a lot of things under the guise of a recodification there's some a
certain nervous moment there and sometimes it's better to take the more uh complicated things pull them out of the bylaw the first time through come back in a year when you got a new base document see if you can make an improvement that's that's a strategy
that that will work but you're going to know that better than me so so I would just revisit this um you know like look at the top of the page offices you've got business offices
listed with medical offices and it's the same parking requirement so I would I I'm going to resend East yeah I thought we had said we wanted to move forward with one of the I thought it was East I forget you sent two we're going to try and blend
them with ours okay that was the intent I'm trying to remember who else's I would have sent you might have in Fox Bros because Andover I think okay yeah it was Andover East is pretty good and it's a local community so you can have
you know you can call the planner and ask him what's up so it's Foxboro for that matter but they tend to complicate things with that Stadium um how do we want to approach this do we want I have a parking table
subcommittee I think I sent a document already just everybody can look at it okay what did you do I just I just reduced the numbers I kind of looked up some statistics what averages are and went with a minimum that I thought was reasonable okay let's let's put Easton's back on
the table too and we'll we'll try to put that job to bed okay okay this this tends to be in my opinion you know there's the Saving Grace of having the final provision here
which says um yeah we've done that a few times with different applicants notably I think the National Weather Service who has a bunch of equipment that takes up space but
doesn't invol doesn't have a car well you can see the last 6.1.3 and this is also in signs it's also in um the general performance standard section so if the planning board in the course of a special perimeter site plan approval decides
that they can vary the requirements of of parking section um it will be upon a finding that there will be no substantial detriment caused by the change and I like I said otherwise you need to apply for a variance which can only be granted under state law if
there's soil conditions shape or topographical features afflicting the lot not common to the district generally a much better way to do this is the thumbs up thumbs down vote on good or bad yeah generally we've had them say show you can fit the parking on the lot
that you need yeah for the bylaw if you don't need it all you don't need to build it all right now but if the use changes over and the next use does need it then you need to be able to yeah they need to be able to make it usable and for a major use I did Legacy Place with the dam planning board I I'd never
worked with a professional parking consulting firm before but they had Walker come in and they were amazing I mean they had they had it down to a very fine science so when you go to Legacy Place don't go on December 10th because it's not a good day but all the rest of
the year it works just fine all right so signs I don't think I changed anything uh with the exception of a minor change tweak to the political signs section that you said was illegal yeah it is there's a case called Leo
versus Galo from the US Supreme Court and in that case the US Supreme Court said that uh the homeowners political speech was the highest and most protected form the sign she she had a sign that said no to the Gulf War the first war George Bush senior's War the
kidss kept tearing it down the police made her take it down she probably put it in her bedroom window and a neighbor sued and she prevailed I'm sure the ACLU stepped in here at some point she prevailed and they said that that sign gets to stay up every day you can't tell
people to put it up 30 days before the election and take it down 10 days after it's the highest form of political speech so that's what I removed from this um the lighting and there's that special permit section again 6.2 21 lighting these are your old rules
um and then there's that special permit section again Landscaping these are your old rules and then there's that special permit section again coming up so if any of these topics need to be varied you can get a special permit for the
modifications this brings us to section 6.5 these are performance standards that I uh haven't Revisited with you in many moons now but I think you just need to give me a level of comfort that you want to keep this in or you want or if if you
don't tell me to take it out I was in Wakefield about a month ago and the board of selectman looked at this section and said I didn't get much of an argument at that point laptops just came unplugged so don't worry about it
we'll just hold here for a second if anybody's wondering why I'm standing sitting here not saying anything we good do we need another plug or all good you good okay perfect okay all right so I'll leave that to an internal discussion I think it's ready to go if you want to
leave it in uh I I think it's a borderline section in terms of what I said earlier and in terms of voter Comfort level it may be something that you want a bank it's not hard for me to just pull it out hand it to you in a separate
document okay I'm on Section seven special regulations I didn't change anything in the earth material section I didn't change anything in the well I did change the adult entertainment establishment section by
adding to it some language which makes it constitutional yes we've uh we went over that I think the original bylaw said it might have been available on the portion of one lot and now it's maybe potentially available in five Lots which
should meet the you won't get Su over Pro prohibiting speech aspect right two two changes one is that um you can't regulate the speech directly but you can regulate the secondary effects of the speech which
tend to be associated with crimes to people and crimes to property the second is that there has to be a reasonable opportunity in every city or town for this kind of speech and you have a thousand uh uh square a th000 foot linear separation requirement we've
lowered that to 500 and chairman has now summarized that you've opened the opportunity up to half a more locations that's good enough um under our Cas laot um
7.3 wir I haven't changed anything in Wireless this is an interesting one 7.4 we've been waiting and waiting and waiting for another case to come down the pike another landc court case came down the pike it didn't add a whole lot to the now knowledge bank it's all it's
like one step up from the knowledge that Tracer Lane gave us but it still doesn't tell us whether you can restrict areas of town completely from any uh solar facilities I would treat this topic as a
third rail I'm well prepared to do that so I have not changed your B and I warn you as a friendly consultant that someday we're going to have an answer to this and you right now you're just hoping yours is the right one can I ask
a quick question on that without going deep into it yeah uh can it be restricted from the residential zones as long as it's permitted in another type of Zone in town if you're asking me for my educated guest I think the answer is no okay
right because the at least one judge an important judge judge Piper of the land court has ruled that he's chief judge of the land Court that it's to be treated like a school a church or a child care facility and you can't say no to a church in a residential district in do
even in 1948 which is how we got the do Amendment okay thank you um I'm just scrolling through this uh the affordable housing
provision this was another one that you had flagged as uh not current with existing case law yes judge Rubin had a case last year in the land Court in which she applied a rule that uh emanated from a Westwood case 10 years ago you can't put a subdivision on a
special permit the subdivision is a an animal created under the subdivision control law it's a different kind of law it's not discretionary so if I comply with every Rule and regulation in the subdivision packet you have to say yes what many towns had done Westwood's
model had nothing to do with affordable housing it had to do with alternative development Styles we don't like that subdivision we want you to build a fancy cluster subdivision apply for two special permits we'll give you the one we like that was nixed by the appeals
court then judge Rubin got the same case the same principle in a case involving an affordable housing special permit so yeah you can have a subdivision now apply for the special permit so we can impose the affordable housing requirement can't do that
so made made headlines in lawyers weekly last year and uh you can still apply the affordable housing bylaw to multif family you can you can't just if you can't apply it to something like a six lot subdivision or an eight lot subdivision because it's uh contrary to
the rules that I just mentioned so that's what I fixed basically that's what I fixed Bas um okay residential cluster developments is what you had you told us take it out we said no yeah yes I I
proposed flexible development but it's close enough I can live with it accessory dwelling units this is where the new section will go and in section nine there's a provision on flood planes I don't I didn't need to change any of
that I might have gotten a new one and I put in the new one in did you have a new flood plane come from FEMA not yet okay no when when you do get the new FEMA um upgrade this is where it will go deleting this old one and adding the new
one this was changed or was it changed was not was not no they haven't updated it will be changed when FEMA tell gives us a new one right exactly read it uh the Water Resource protection overlay District was not changed either this is a standard model that D
circulated at least two or three times chronologically uh 9.3 this is the old Wetland protection overlay District that has page after page after page of the property that it applies to this is what you see on the screen right now yeah and
we're going to leave well enough alone there the marijuana overlay District um was I think provided to me and I added what you gave me and lastly there were some section some
sections in the village commercial districts were very deep u in design criteria and I think even more so in the Village Center core District so rather than litter the other sections of the with
this I moved it over into special district requirements it's just Verbatim what you have today and then we get to the business end of the bylaw which is um building inspector's job description
the zba's job description enforcement and penalties planning board gets its own section special permit language has been slightly modified these would be the new criteria for the spga to use making its
decision can you hold on that just for a second sure just to make sure that we all what is the difference focus on that so these would be criteria yeah for Arts to do an a balancing test with applications for
special permits and I think the old one had most of this in spirit but it was redundant for the most part uh it repeated a lot of things I think this is as I always say the these were the criteria that were the ones used in the
approval of Legacy Place work fine yeah 18 meetings of the planning board um and a lot of uh a lot of professional experts involved on both sides board and the applicant yeah and I think number
six there has teeth that I don't think we've really had much of before and I would not use that as a decision maker I I I would use it as an information gatherer you know I did a project with Judy Barrett many years ago in the small
town of leester they zoned for big box and they got it they got a like it was a Walmart I think and they offered you know they they said right away we're going to give you X Dollar in general tax revenue for The Bu for the building
and we sounded great but then Judy compared the same siiz building in the T in the next town over and that 220,000 ft Walmart generated 800 police calls a year that's not what you promised us so
we just used it to negotiate a little bit more mitigation in the course of granting the special permit because otherwise it was a good application okay and then I take you to definitions at that point now we did make a few changes to site plan approval mostly in terms of
procedure um the way that the appeal Provisions work um now in the uh in the new draft will be that the appeal uh section 10616 goes directly to
court and that is I think the best legal and professional way to handle it um the uh land court has said a couple of years ago go judge Foster ruled that if it's going to go directly to court no problem
but you should have a public hearing locally so that there's a record for the judge to review and i' I've taken that to heart and I've added a public hearing requirement for site plan approval that's pretty much it I've also
added a couple of new sections here one is site plan approval for Dober related uses that's churches schools Child Care Facilities um otherwise it's all thrown into the lap of the building inspector and he or she has to say yes or no that doesn't seem fair to anybody including
the building inspector so why not send it to the planning board first and you make the call now it's a majority vote as to whether it can go forward or not and if it's not going to go forward it goes to court the building inspector isn't you know head isn't on The Chopping Block every time one of these
things comes through and then the last one is a reasonable accommodation for uses protected by federal disability law was and that this has mostly to do with uh things like drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities anyone
recovering from those addictions is a handicapped person or a disabled person under the federal fair housing act amendments or the Ada respectively so you know this this is nuclear you don't want to mess this up so this is a
procedure to keep you out of trouble okay and I know you have all the definitions all in the back rather than littered through every single section of the bylaw in a game of hideand-seek yeah I think it goes It goes from
page 119 to page it's 144 pages so probably that part yeah 25 Pages the definitions Okay so we've talked about additional hearing just talking on the
use table and the parking table and then some additional cleanups along the way is there anything else that you're looking for us this evening no I think the order of uh takeaways tonight would be uh the subcommittee of Laura Paul and
me doing a basic cleanup uh and then getting a meeting scheduled with Steve we we'll present those uh in advance of a meeting but if we can uh get Steve to give us his suggestions for the use table yeah I
think he has but it's uh if it's gotten lost in the shuffle lost in an email we can make sure that that's uh sent to you again well most crucial is that it's sent to you because I think we should be coming to that meeting and we
I think we have it as well yes I think Paul sent it to us as in a Steve wants to talk about this please don't look at it for the first time during the meeting exactly that is the goal and if I think there was another thing Steve the parking table yes okay U and I think I
think at that point in time we're ready I I want to go to the public hearing with as clean a document as possible because otherwise we're making floor amendments and I don't like floor amendments no I don't either okay um yes and from for your perspective we did
submit placeholder language for the warrant uh already so I thank you for spending some time with me this evening and we'll be moving forward an accelerated Pace I'm sure yeah I think any additional questions comments I know
and Mr seagull if you wanted just comp to a microphone so that uh your voice can be heard Beyond this room Orin seagull 28 cotting Road my first question is um with this is per presented to town meeting what what is actually presented to them and how clear
are the changes being outlined um so i' I've got um a coded version of the first probably four drafts in which everything is either yellow new um black existing text or strikeout for
deletions um I think it's close enough because there weren't major changes made after that to give you a an an idea of what changed with regard to about 90 to 95% be a red line verion you can't do a track change on a zoning once I delete
something and move it over here first of all it doubles and triples the page numbers but you you you're going to start by if you don't read the whole thing you'll say well he deleted this no I just moved it you know how track change works the bigger thing about the table
CH I I have a simple major minor change Matrix that um I've already given to Paul we can fat it up a little bit so that we see if we get everything yeah I Mr seagull is a former member of the planning board and I would
say uh probably more detail oriented than myself so um yeah thank you two two questions one um this virsion six I went online and what I what I what all I found was a table of a table of contents the whole
version six is that online we'll we'll get it there okay and then I I found these new tables now this is something something new or is that something generated by the board that's I haven't that's mine I haven't Pro proposed okay um we we'll get the clean versions out there we've had a lot of drafts going
back and forth but I just wanted to put everything that I had out there so we'll we'll make sure that we get I I don't know where the board's going to end up on some of these changes to the to the useth table but from my reading of it uh it's like you're declaring war on the
residents you're taking away a lot of protections that I found in the bylaws and I would just caution this board if they're going to be taking up the MBTA process again this year and need it to get passed you may want to consider postponing it if you're going to be
showing a lot of changes use changes to residential areas you may not want to have to have that come up because there going to be discussions on it and it only will take away from the importance of getting MBA pass MBTA passed so if there's any really significant changes
and from what I've read there's a lot of them and I think just the nature of the number whether or not they're required by state or there's a good reason for them you don't want to spend time trying to do that and get the people up upset about it thank you thank
you thank you I and I did get your I think you may have sent it to Paul too I didn't notice but you sent it to me earlier I I skimmed through it but I did not have the time in between a couple hours to go through it line by line I I'd like to clarify also this is a a
project that's a concept I've been working on and proposing for more than a year maybe a year and a half prior to this uh individual project and I'm still trying to get feedback from the board about what aspects of it are palatable
or not and that's why I'm looking for an actual concentrated review to see what anybody does agree on what might be too far what is not it's not a hard line this is absolutely what it needs to be this is just my recommendations some of
it might not be right I think most of it is very toned down I think war on residential zone is a bit of a stretch but it's that's fine um but I I yeah I think it's something that needs an honest review not it's not an absolute
for me um so so Rob yes just into the mic sorry Orin was asking about a document that that was marked up to show the changes and you were mentioning um some of the technical limits of the track changes in word right but I do hand code
it through draft 4 okay there is a way you could produce one get one marked up though way want if the gentleman will do a test email to me I'll send one back to you um let give me a I thought it was a good ask I yeah no no that's why I do it so that when someone asks for the
changes there's a document that I can easily provide to them okay yeah and I and I know that the as you've said the plan is that you would be part of the discussion at Town beating correct well I'm planning to come to the public hearing assuming that it's on a day where i'm able to come and then I'm uh
double booked on your night of town meeting but I'm coming to yours Paul and I are working on it unbelievably I'm doing two towns in May you're both holding a town meeting on May 19th but we're going to try to put him on and unbelievably there are your both on Route 140 on the other but the other one
is just at the base of Mount wat chusetts not close okay yes no that makes sense um and thank you meeting 140 itself is not your best route there no definitely not even if it's the same Ro so I think that any additional questions
comments for Mr barasi at this time otherwise move on to the next discussion okay thank you okay and I saw a number of people come into the room about an hour into the meeting so it looks like our message about we're going to start the MBTA
discussion through a 15 was well received so thank you everybody for joining us um Paul do you just want to give an introduction on um kind of what's transpired since our last meeting I know you had sent around some guidance from the state um
and then the goal I think for people here this evening is to try to vote on specific part Parcels to select for notification and again to clarify these would not necessarily be the final final Parcels that appear at town meeting this
is the what we would be doing is to select the the big list from which we could shrink but from which we will not expand further before a town meeting correct so with that action tonight it would allow us so I'll get into this
because it it picks up on a lot of that I I don't have uh too much here but um but ultimately we just want to get toward to where the board is comfortable and plus I want to recognize we have our select board members and I saw that uh
Brandon from uh fincom was on here too to to get you all to determine uh give us direction as to what we can advertise because tomorrow when the warrant closes I'll be working with the town manager's office to solidify that schedule because
pretty soon we're going to have to be putting the notices in the paper and getting signs and all of that so just quickly um just following up on the discussion we had at our last meeting um regarding the law the case with the attorney general versus the town of
Milton um I did reach out after our meeting to the executive office of Housing and livable communities and ask them specifically about the regulations and what whether or not they're truly regulations or uh guidelines and you
have that and it's in the um it's also in the public Dropbox that they feel that it is in fact regulations that they're in effect and enforceable um I also followed up on the Wheaten College discussion could we use
Wheaten and um again there was another email that said it's excluded property including including ball fields was excluded but the one thing I really wanted to point out there um I think it was Zach last meeting who asked the question well how closely are they going
to look at this and when you look when I looked at the response and they they said well we looked at the attribute tables the land the the land map attribute tables for wheat and college to make this determination thought well that's a pretty good indicator they're looking very closely when they're
pulling up GIS data my assumption for a simple email from a planner yes that's uh yeah so it's it's they're going to look at whatever we submit they're going to do a deep dive into it so question about that yeah um you said they can you
go into the mic again Rob sorry you said B fields are excluded yeah he said that they that that the the um the parcel to the north of the main campus which included the Ballfield but ball fields no no I'm sorry he meant our ballfields or all
ball fields the weat in Ballfield the we I stated it incorrectly it was the Ballfield area of Wheaten oh so they made a special okay for Wheaten because it was Wheaten not ball fields ballfields are not so sorry about that thank you for clarifying that so uh time
frame uh the articles are due tomorrow but we've already met that um I'll know sometime this week what the final dates are for us we we have our meeting schedule for March and April um so that'll tell us so from here tonight
you'll be selecting the parcel strictly for noticing and then February March you know in that ballpark you'll be refining the parcels and then we'll be also focusing on the text recommendations and spoiler alert Steve
has some comments on the use table there too and then um in March and April the planning board will be make making your recommendation and we'll have to find out when we'll be having to present to finance committee and select
board um so going back over this again Norton Glenn is one of the properties that we're looking at it's I I made a mistake on the last hand uh presentation I excluded accidentally one piece of land
which was about an acre so it's a total of 28 Acres again that gives you a little more buffer here too so we want to start T you know snipping things out of there that could be those could be some of the areas so um Mansfield Avenue
uh again that's about 32 Acres again you might have some room to take something out there too if you want to to try to get this closer to the the 50 acre uh but the two areas combined get you add about
60 Acres again um that's not having run the compliance model which after tonight once you give me the direction I'll give serid the go ahead sera's our regional planning agency they'll run the
compliance model they'll take things out like um wetlands and so forth um but we're getting close we're we're we're hovering around that number we want to get to and you'll have opportunities to
further uh reduce it we also have um 138 barrows that you've talked about the former Twee Mill which is about 24 Acres this would be you know I would I just listed as option b or Plan B if you wanted to go a different route but you
talked about that um next steps again you're going to be selecting parcels and then we'll start to refine language and look at things like density bonuses and lot sizes and so forth um real quick i' I've
wanted to make sure I was much more accountable on community outreach than the first goar around we had with this so I've been busy working on a lot of Outreach events we've had a couple um in fact um I don't want to go through this
too much but uh recently um I had the first of what I call the road show it was a small scale thing but I want to do these once or twice a month uh we had an event at Honeydew I want to do one in about a week at Alberto it's just where
the public can come in and we have a good conversation in fact Steve was there with me when uh the one last week um but I've also reached out to a lot of town boards and Community groups and I have right now five groups lined up
scheduled already in fact tomorrow night the library Board of Trustees and then you can see later on uh groups like The Chamber of Commerce the school board is in a couple of weeks and uh housing authority and Water and Sewer Commission are already set up but others that I'm
working on just getting dates finalized as Council on Aging conservation uh a few others including the land preservation society and the veterans Council and I saw Roger back there and I know he's trying to help set up with the veterans Council so thank you
Roger um we're also doing a bit more socializing in fact uh the treasurer did me a big favor that we're able to put about a little 2-in blurb in your motor vehicle excise tax bill it'll be right at the top it'll use a QR code but a
little write up about it so that way way um people know about this initiative um we're also in the process of handing out um uh one page or two businesses and Community organizations we're using emails um social media in
fact I just started with next store and we're starting to get some communication going there Facebook's been big um I also did a a survey um and just real quick on that survey it's only got 10 respon 12 responses at this point but it
was trying to assess you know where people are feeling about things but also for me to um find out if they want to learn more if they want to meet and I've got a handful of people I'll be reaching out to so little victories there you know the more we can reach out and
answer questions that's a success um because at the end of the day these other groups I should point out with the other boards uh Town boards they don't have an official vote on it my main thing is they're town meeting voters and I want to get out to any town meeting
voter that we can if they want to if a board wants to make a recommendation they're they're welcome to do so but I'm not asking for it but I just want to make sure when people go to town meeting they know what they're voting on and had the chance to have their questions
answered um with the survey uh again this is such a small sample but you know looking at what the benefits are PE some people talked about the benefits would be more reasonably priced housing supporting their businesses uh but there were some who just said none of the above there
wouldn't be benefits um conversely asked about what concerns they have with implementing the law traffic schools environmental so forth and um they also asked people you know what type of housing would they like to see mostly
small scale types of housing is what people said and uh that's that's my spiel okay so I think I see your hand up Rob so just for
the board this evening we want to vote for Parcels to be noticed and my recommendation and if people feel differently would be to vote individually as sections so when we get
to that point we'd say I'd like to motion that we notice for the parcels in the Norton Glenn then we do up or down to whatever we want to have and we can have two we can have
three we can have if the board chooses to notice more that doesn't stop us from whittling it down later um but that's how I think it makes sense to go about it my only fear with that is the more
Mike my fear with that is the more we notice the more the people are going to be confused and we're cloudy in the picture whereas if we're more concise people are going to have a better idea of where exactly we're talking about that's my only yes and I think the only
reason where I would look where I would personally I think vote for additional sections would be to protect against a scenario where we pick two and we go to a public hearing and the owner the Norton Glenn says this
is great I've been looking to redevelop these redevelop these for years this gives me the mechanism to do so thank you very much and we go oh we did this because we thought it wouldn't happen and then we're stuck um so that's I think my only the
only reason I think I would in theory vote for additional sections I think we might want to add some additional ones as well just in case it doesn't meet the compliance mod so we have some I think we have I think we have the buffer now with those two if
those are the two we land on the question is cuz we have 10 acres of buffer right now and we would Whittle that down by parcel by parcel basically okay so I'm less worried about the compliance model buffer than a big buffer so in the case of the Glenn are
we going to go literally par because in the case of the I would take them as a group and we would Whittle it down at a future session to say we've noticed all of these Parcels our final selection is going to take out Parcels 3 four and five or something like that okay there
are some undeveloped Parcels within the Glen which would potentially that we may be built yeah we if we wanted to avoid that then pull them out now yeah yeah the the little section on the side called Libman drive that's not developed yeah that's if you excluded that you'd
still have 25 acres yeah yeah uh it's 23 and a half yeah maybe Wetland that's just there so yeah yeah right but there is there's one Rogue building that looks like it's split between the two of them but other than that there's not much down there yeah okay so Rob sorry you
had a couple of questions or comments U well I wanted ask because as you went through and I because I had also asked if we would consider EB apartments and Redmill Village both these are too and so uh did they fall out or that's up to you all um I have I have data on the
East so yeah we can we can take that up as okay a discussion point if we want to look at East m is one of the things that we do or do not choose to notice yeah I I I want to have a very clear answer on this like is Redmill
Village eligible yes under state law like I I know that the village the the the district itself cannot mandate that it's a senior village it can't have an A age restriction are age restricted
developments forbidden from being the district where we Zone it I I don't I don't believe so an excluded property it would be getting torn down and you build a new fac then it can't be restricted at that point the Restriction is on the facility guys we
got to use the mics just to the Restriction is on the facility not the land I did look into this and um so if you replace that you know you put in this new development if you bought that and tore it down put in your new development you're doing a new facility
you can designate it how you want in this case you're going to have to designate it according to the MBTA overlay rules it's an overlay so you could do it either way you could do the base zoning or the overlay but UND yeah if the in theory yes that is not an area
that we have had in our list to evaluate um we should in theory we can vote on whatever we would like during this session so um and then I'd like to just REM East Main
Apartments is a thing from them even though they're adjacent I think sh I think the only thing that I see on the list that would be would be uh excluded uh in this area would be wetlands and water bodies but the uses themselves would not
be yeah if there was a if it was a deed restriction to the the land or something like that which would have made it prohibited by the something in there that's I think what Steve was I think getting at um
so I think we've had is there anything anybody wanted to put forward and discuss I think we've had a lot of public comment on this if there's people who would like to speak I think I'd like to give them that opportunity before we
vote on anything is any is anybody do we want any additional comments or questions from procedurally before we have people come up okay Miss Winston do I see your hand if you yeah sure no rush I'm glad you're moving better than
you were last meeting that was painful uh my concern is as was yours about the grant money so it be behooves us to put at least one or two pels on
that are unlikely to be built that's my strong and zero on you mean zero on places likely at the same time right that's what you're saying understood thank you um I see and I see
yeah um brid Car Oak Street could I just ask the board to please speak into the microphone when speaking because it's trying to I know I know I know it's hard but it is hard to hear thank you Roger Mars in 62 power Street um
first I'm I'm sure this is just a beating a dead horse but it seems like we have found ourselves again in a position where we're trying to find a way to get around what the state wants
us to do the state wants us to have more housing and we're trying to say where can we put this where nobody's ever going to build it and for I think the fight should be more with the state than amongst ourselves about where we want to
put this the state again is heavy-handed and coming down on us for no good reason except for their own political reasons so let me just say that to begin with um looking at the property on Mansfield
AB that you were looking at I believe one of those Parcels is owned by the town I'm not sure if that was marked on that map that we had up um just so make sure that we don't count that in as uh one of the parcels so when we're looking at
acreage um can anybody do you know uh Paul what is the cost of noticing properties each individual letter going out currently is $69 sense plus the time Town staff has to do
to put it together and do it do it all which is not nothing right so that's a map I was looking at and one of those Parcels up near the top is owned by the town I believe right right it's where the kayak Center was um and I didn't see
on any of your Maps the um East Main and Redmill Village as a single parcel that I think um has the 50 acre that we need but um I'm not sure if that's just another parcel
that we could notice and maybe reduce it it from there if we if the board decides that we don't want you don't want to do that that's fine East M was discussed as a potential Plan B plan C at our last session okay um but I would just suggest
that um in regards to what Mr art said I think that the more Parcels that we have noticed then we can narrow down where we want to go before we go to town meeting as opposed to narrowing it down too early and then finding problems before
we get there thank you Mr Kimbell please thank you Bob Kimble 51 Pine Street when PR a rock in a hot spot huh basically what you have here is another unbanded unfunded mandate by the state to force us to do something we don't
want to do and unfortunately for everyone in this room will have an impact on our services Mansfield La has been a sour part with mine since since we started this because of the obvious possibility that the it could be used for commercial
industrial development in the future which we don't have a lot of that left to know it this is probably one of the Prime areas that we could do something like that including the uh the gulf course uh which could be Poss a possibility taking away this one parel
one section of uh of U potential commercial industrial base uh is something that I've been I would encourage you not to do uh M my my reason for that is if you have seage it's already there they will come it's going to they're going to come if you
put it in an area I mean we're talking about Redmill Village that has that has s to seage also as does the Glenn The Glenn however is a forced I believe it's a forced uh sewer line so it's not like anyone else can connect to it but it's still it's still in there if you put on
a piece of land that's going to be uh already have Town water and surage it's going to encourage development if you put it on Barrel Street which has Antiquated Services the pipes are very
old the water pipes um and I think it's an ideal situation if you put some if you can take something that's already a u a problem as we all know the old property is a problem and turn it into something positive uh that's a that's
something that maybe could be considered I just encourage you to take a look at this I mean an obvious example now is the new apartments right behind McDonald's I mean that's what you're going to be that's what you're looking at on Mansfield AV in the future and
hopefully the industry on the other side will continue to grow but as we know as that happens and as people see new industry going in across the street everybody gets to an upo and says I don't want that in my neighborhood so it's just another example why we shouldn't use Mansfield Avenue that
green area behind the Zone by the town it's got a conservation restriction on it can't be used for anything else uh we tried to use that as a dredging area years ago to clean the reservoir and even that was a problem so it becomes a pro a big problem um
on the density issues obviously we don't we don't want to give them any more than we have to there 50 acres let give them 50 acres wherever it might be um something that's going to come up in the village core pretty soon is people ask about the Old Mansfield Bank what's going on there I've seen the plan I
don't believe you have but I have seen the plan uh it's a 23,000 ft parcel it's going to have 18 condos and two storefronts on it that's what's being proposed so if you can visualize what a half acre is going to look like in the
center of our town plus it possible uh developing in the center of town imagine what's going to look like wherever we go 750 new units of housing could be a real serious problem yes so let's let but yeah I'm almost done I'm
done but I just I'm just bringing up as an example but I would encourage you to try to stay with the man you have if you can uh again we're between a rock and a hotspot I appreciate what you're trying trying to do uh and you've put a lot of effort into it I know you have it's just
a question of where it needs to go and in a town that doesn't have a train station you go to Mansfield you go to Ador they've done a very nice job of developing those areas I mean that to me is what it should be about that's where it should be to bringing into North we
barely have a bus going through the town and center of town at times and and expect people to get in their car drive to a parking lot somewhere get into a bus get down to a train station and then go into Boston and go wherever the hell you're going to go I mean it's just so
many steps and it's it's ridiculous that the state is even talking about any town that AB buts an mvta station should be involved in this the right way to have done it would have been go for the areas that already have the train deal with that and if that doesn't
work then Branch out this is nothing more than extension of the 40b process the old comprehensive process we're at 10% now we finally made it there there and now they're going to throw this monkey wrench into the into the mix so it just makes it a bit more difficult yeah but and I think dear comment about
Mansfield da I think this is one of the areas that we got a lot of feedback on because it has existing multif family already so even if something went into one of those properties it's not a net new everything
on services in terms of units and because they're all under split ownership it's not right for any kind of massive Redevelopment unless somebody bought people out one by one by one by one by one I one of the challenges that we see with some of the Twee that we
heard one us there's nothing there now so anything you put there is going to be net new even if the current building is old fire falling down in a fire hazard as we saw a couple years ago right right so I appreciate what you're trying to do I really do and I think you know you're
on the right track it's just a question of how to how to make it worth work in a way that we don't encourage the development hopefully not all at once because that will have a major impact on us I think we all know that we get about $5,500 for schools from the state every
year they they give on it's unfunded mandate they come along with and say put up all this housing and it costs us about 122,000 $133,000 for every student we put in the system so it just has an impact on everybody but appreciate what you're trying to do if you can stare
from manre appreciate if not if it's if it's what it is it is so but thank you thank you Steve yeah thank you Mr kemell uh could I make one comment just um where Redmill Village exists right now is Zone
commercial there is no guarantee by not including housing in a commercial Zone that the com that the housing won't go there the 40 BS get permitted not by the planning board and we can't prevent it regardless of our zoning um so just
wanted to reflect on the viability of commercial as much as we want to protect it sometimes it's not protectable yeah let him go um I think I read the uh they have adopted or action plan has been approved M congratulations that's
good um with regard to to to getting your your your message out if you have any taped programs if you've taped any of the interviews you had or the sessions if you can provide those to me um sure Redmill Village we weren't going to be able to have a meeting there wouldn't be enough there wasn't going to
be enough interest to have a meeting but if you give me a tape I can put it on our website in answer to your question Redmill Village was created by a condominium under 183 183a That's goes with the title to the property so I would suggest suggest that
even though it's not zoned that way it has the coverage the ownership of that property is subject to the condominium law which our Master deed requires 55 and over so I would suggest um may may sound nice but I think you're going to
run into a problem A logistically and B if I had to try to explain that what was happening to my community you'd have a lot more people out of that at that town meeting that you've ever seen before um question I had I kept on reading this and the one thing the One requirement it
asked for it says to be located not more than5 miles from a Commuter Rail station Ferry Station or bus station does that not apply not for an adjacent community no it's not for it's a bus but or Orin was I know you would
email we don't have a bus station in Norton so the rule gave us flexibility to place it in a reasonable area a bus Stop's not a station I understand well it gives you permission to request one if you needed
one so so the so there's no MPA connection but we're still required to comply I forgive me I haven't read the regulations so there's no require there even though this is tied to mass transit we have no mass transit Connections in the state this was a big welcome to the
last year of Our Lives this was a big flaw in the whole process we we we're stuck with it but but because we're an adjacent Community we're not tied to you know we're not limited as to where it can go if if your Mansfield you had to
do it around your t- stop or adbor did and they were doing it already but for us we were given flexibility because we don't have any of those Transit hubs that that the law calls for so they did say you had you know and
use your best judgment with it but we didn't have to place it within uh you know half a mile of a t- stop what was the bus station or the bus stop that that um the Lenard Street was supposed to be putting in what bus what
bus was that transit for there was a bus stop proposed in L stre designed for potential GATRA right right um what what bus line was that and what it connected to the line I couldn't speak to it was designed to potentially allow for it it
wasn't a mandate for it to be there is that something the town would want it was a future route that's what it was no it was not at the time came up it was it was it was they were they were going to have negotiations to have it there yeah because because the Meep me
meup process was looking for it right I thought well you know that's a few years you know you were on the board um I thought there was a discussion with got for I it was laid out in their plans that was before Co and they it was L
their plans in response to the the the meepa process but that's just a a stop so it a stop doesn't fall under the requirements for for locational requirements no I'm just curious whether the town has any interest in promoting that and given they're forced to do a
lot of other things whether that's something we would want them to do I don't know that they wouldn't yeah thank you yes and Orin speaking to your uh incredulity about the regulations the uh the worst part is the I'll I say the worst that's maybe a poor qualifier but
the uh least fun part is that the Milton case that Paul mentioned the state judal court found that the state didn't go through the process of making the regulations correctly so that it wasn't enforceable
so the state went okay here are these regulations that we didn't get approval on look I'm going to put them behind my back and now they're emergency regulations and they work just fine um so so it's uh interesting okay Rob did you have a
comment that you wanted to say and I know um you were asking about the state why they went for the adjacent Rob can you go into the mic why sorry I keep forgetting why they went for the adjacent communities um the the reason being is they're trying to get as many towns
caught here you look how the MBTA goes out there and it's like fingers by saying adjacent towns they're sort of covering all the area in between the fingers and basically they've had an in huge influx of people to the state they're trying to find housing for and
so putting this on more towns creates more that that's but that is the reason why they went for adjacent communities too it was just to expand their scope um also I just wanted to elaborate on that point earlier about some things like
um Redmill and uh this would apply to East Main Apartments let's also remember that is a completely separate it's adjacent but it is separate it is land we can use um the thing with that place is you can put it there and a person is free to build there but to do that
they've got to buy a whole bunch of already still uh relatively recent development that has been filled and the value of that asset they would have to buy that take it and then build their housing and that isn't going to happen
in any profitable sense so by putting it in places like that it's like um Foxboro putting on top of the stadium you're welcome to do it all you got to do is buy The Stadium from Craft tear it down and build your housing you know that's the numbers aren't going to work and that is how we can head this off is
putting it in places where it's like that and if they decided to do it anyways what the heck it's already dense population it's not really a net change for us so that that's the reasoning there and that's the reason we should apply to our choices is places where
they just you know people aren't going to do it so let's Mr Sweeney if you want to just St your name and no as for the record please mark Sweeney 14 Laur Lane good okay that's that's fine or
seagull 28 cutting Road I think was pointed out before the more you do that especially in populated areas and populated you're going to open up questions and have more people at that town meeting asking more questions we and we don't have a problem with that
because that's better than trying to explain an empty unbuilt place where people are going to be asking the obvious question well that's all net new population density added to Norton um that's going to hit upon the very warning the finance um committee gave us
that we will not that will cost us more to have that there than we'll collect in taxes so it strains our budgets they made that quite clear when we spoke to them what so let's we're not going to no yeah no but I'm just elaborating th those were the reasonings why and the
reasoning behind that so I think having to tell a bunch of people this is how we keep this from landing on your neck versus putting it over here you're going to be in the town that's having those budget problems this is going to be your problem if we put it here I think you'd find we could answer those questions so
go ahead Mark sorry sorry Mr Sweeney I didn't mean to make it come up and then marks 14 Laura Lane Paul do you have a list of the grants these state grants right that we're not going to up get if we say no to this do you have a list of those yeah up it's a it's an ever
expanding list I think we noticed in the uh y they've added fire safety stuff let you know how much for the fire safety we talking well it just tells you their priorities doesn't it okay but a dollar figure is do we know what the dollar figure is cuz I'm the biggest guy in
town on fire safety as far as goes I think the big Charlie but I'll give it up I mean I think the biggest one was there was a sewer grant that this town had applied or gotten for that was a couple million dollars Paul and the other ones I think were more in the tens
of thousands rather than the big numbers but but there was a that was something that um was that Elm Street you're referring to I believe so yeah that was something that was something that um Michael tul asked at town meeting in the fall so is the word is the board's word
not word but concurrence that the uh the grants are of value that if we say no to this and just say no I'm going to get to that point why I want to say no but if the are the do the grants outweigh the
problems I understand your thought process I think speaking for myself speaking for myself I think the state has determined determined previously that they were going to play hard ball and when Milton said when the Milton
case said this is constitutional enforcable they certainly not going to back down yeah they're including it in boilerplate for fire safety grants and I assume any kind of discretional discretionary Grant or fund that somebody is putting out from any State
office they have a mandate from the attorney general put in this boiler plate before it goes out the door okay so that's my per my personal feeling um all right well so now did you have the the list of Grants trying to find
it so that's well the the issue is obviously to repeat everybody with schools it's just going to kill the schools you're going to get 700 I mean you got have to build a new school basically somewhere in there uh to keep
up with the kids give me a number 750 kids one for each house roughly I don't know you got two kids now you're you're doing well over a thousand we only have 2,000 kids in in school you're going to go up by 50% that means you're going to have to build schools
somewhere somehow and if you put it out on barrels now you've got it's a pain in the ass to get there fire and police to get to barrels I can see 140 that's easier but now you're going to be it's it's it barrels is tucked away I'm just saying this board should basically say no I think the town's going to basically
tell you to go say no cuz you got to You've Got Tonight you've got me saying it all right down the road you're going to have to to go in front of the uh the the finance commission uh the select board they're all going to say no cuz you're going to have a public comment there you going have people like me
coming in saying no and then when when you get to the town meeting it's going to be a big no you might just K you know kill this thing right now and see what happens I know and that's why I'm asking what what grants are you going to lose but other than that we have them on the screen now if you'd like to look I think
with the larger point of what you're getting to is why I think the two areas we flashed at the beginning are the ones that we've been looking at since the open house event that we did and all the public comments that we had is there are properties that have existing multif
family already so anything that if you tore it down and built something new you're not having net from zero new on top of it okay but I if something was built that's if you build yeah you rip down a bunch of houses that have kids and then put in but still you're still
going to have a boatload of new kids up an upper not just a a net zero you're going to have an upper and that's also and we have the numbers on that a and that's also why the town planner also did an evaluation of each of those lots
the land value and the property value to make sure that none of the the simple example is there's no crappy fixer upper on a nice lot where it makes where it makes sense to tear it down and build it new in all of those lots the building
value is higher than the property value it sits on so none of them are right for redevelopment from the money perspective either see now the right now as we speak apartments are the hot item nobody nobody up in the Boston Providence area
nobody can you know over under a certain age 40 45 pick a number they can't afford a six s 500,000 67,000 house which is not that big they these kids can't afford that they're all living with Mom and dad type of thing so
they're all going to go to apartment so my my thought is they're still going to they're still going to tear it down and build something new the apartments are going to come because if you give them an opportunity they will build it so and what you say yeah um f we do
have the list of Gramps up there questions about that before we move on no I'll let somebody else speak thank you you just just see what happens say no what's going to happen okay I have you know what I mean the the town hall will I mean the town
meeting will say it for you but I guess your job is to present something like to head that off um and that's what I want to speak to um if we are building the you know these grants yeah we could lose them yeah we can go to the mat fighting the
state um that will cost us more money um our best bet and Norton's best interest right here is to not have this be our fight let the other towns go to war on this and this is why we're trying to promote the idea of building it on
places where either ain't going to happen or if they do we really don't care it's not really a net change and and and that's to be H the parcels I'm pushing that is exactly what I'm trying for so in the end this does not cost Norton anything but we have a
complied have comply excuse me I said that wrong okay so this isn't our fight you know the other towns we can be reading it about in the papers and not care that's where I'd like to get us so so can I just I think I was oh I'm sorry no you we want to hear from you okay
absolutely um bridg Car Oak Street I agree with what a lot of Rob just said but also um this has been going on since 2021 when this was signed into law so I feel like a lot of people don't know this is now year four we just passed the fouryear anniversary actually of it
being signed into law so it it it we all know it sucks it's a kind of a crappy law to begin with um the design for it is great I think the concept sorry the concept is an okay concept of like you know creating more housing in communities that have higher density and
are more accessible to Boston Providence Etc but the way it was gone about I feel like we all know the song and dance it wasn't great um however I do just think complying in the easiest way that puts the least amount of strain on our town we we don't have money um we're all
pretty much aware of that we don't have resources we don't have um much to lose um I would like to try and maybe not lose uh what we have left potentially um obviously schools are a very big concern and I do think that but really going to
these meetings and having attended other towns MBTA forums in the fall um it it's not pro probably not going to get built um I that's what I know we can't play by that I know it sucks to say and I I I get it but that's kind of the how most
people that I see and interpret have been looking at it is like yes we'll comply but like what are the odds it's getting built I don't know if that makes sense I I support that and uh and the reason I'm recommending it is because if we you
know we do go in this fight it it costs us money this is the the bottom line and she was just saying we really don't have budget left we just had a big fight about that last year I'm certainly not looking to take on more strain on that so it it is an important thing to Norton
and we really do want to put our efforts into how to comply because we don't want the fight how to comply with this way um this is why I want to put the East Main and the Redmill back in yeah but Paul I think you were going to say something just to on the point about schools and I'm glad
Mark brought it up and it's been brought up in our that survey um TR typically a part multif Family actually has less impact on schools per unit than single family not always depends on the number of bedrooms but there are studies
out there in fact I've posted them I posted one up on our MBTA project page that showed the impacts of multifam on school districts and it's and it's not that significant and I know people have a concern they hear a number of units
but not all units are the same and multif family typically is a lower generator of of students so we are adding if you in theory there could be more of them so you're it's a it's an argument but I think it's a challenging argument to
make scale if we if we had overcrowded schools that would be you know much more of an issue and we have a great school district and you I don't have kids but I would think people want to locate their kids in schools where they have great
you know locate their children so they can go to great schools which Norton is fortunate to have yeah no I think that makes sense and I think um yeah I think is he I'd like to come back and finish and then I'm G to com
what you're saying on the schools I know we don't have overcrowded School Rob can you make sure you're in the we don't have overcrowded schools but we do have underfunded schools so the money thing does matter um I'm not sure I don't I'm not sure I agree with the downplaying you did because I've seen other figures
so so I would review that thought now what I was saying about why we need to comply and why we need to come up with something we can show people we are complying and tell the town and this is why it's not going to get built is because of what
um Mark Sweeney was up here um saying is basically the people in the town if we come up with something else like some clever town we'll give them a little and and all that they're just going to say no and then we're not in compliance if they vot if they put us down at this town meeting we're
busted so I think we need to put our best foot forward come through with something where people genuinely believe this is not going to happen to us and the state isn't going to fall on us that's what you can get a yes vote from the T media so so well just let's yeah
so Mr Kimel did you want to make just fast an example I know I think you're Paul I think you're trying your best to do it but you have 15 units of housing on one acre a passo of land come on it's more than one kid and this whole discussion is going to be not about so
much the impact of the development on the community it's going to be about what's it going to cost us M on my street Pine Street when I built there I could walk across the street no problem today I'll get hit 15 times before I get across further down the street they're building homes a million one you know
how much that's going to generate in taxes how much about $144,000 we pay 1775 to educate one kid in this town so that is going to be the the the if you're going to if you're going try to make an example of impact
on the services that's the one you got to work on because to me 15 units one bedroom okay two bedroom now you got a problem and the gentleman I spoke to about the no Bank Pro property next door the Historical Society on West
Main his combination is one in two bedroom condos 18 of them 20 2 3,000 square ft how many kids are going to be generated from that how much are we going to generate in tax income not as much to take care of so that I wouldn't
use that as an example when you start talking about school population that's not a good that's not a good example um I also want to add the law or the guidelines in there they do say these units should be family suitable and so if you're trying to make them family suitable that does imply kids yeah and I
think miss wion you were asking a question about D City bonuses that ties into the language that would go into this bylaw separate from the map um that was something that was in the previous version of the bylaw and something that
probably will not survive into the next version happy to have that discussion and when we get to the language yeah bu more the the idea was to encourage commercial development along with residential if you want to if we want to go more in depth with that when
we get into the the language around the setbacks height restrictions all that stuff hopefully not next meeting but what we want to do tonight is partial selection so um if I could just make
make a comment and just kind of level set here um it is being imposed on us it is being imposed on 177 communities many of which have uh MBTA facilities running through them
which in those cases they are required to produce significant more housing much more dense housing the developers are going to go after the lowest hanging fruit the lowest hanging fruit is where they can get the most bang for their Buck meaning the most density in a
single place and where the infrastructure already exists I think our my opinion is this board should be focusing on removing as much lwh hanging fruit as
possible to make it less enticing we also have to balance that with do we want to potentially give up good commercial space we also have to weigh that with in terms of you know potentially
losing commercial opportunities and I had another thought and it's gone so I will just leave it at that there was a point too but I've it's gone it's late so I just wanted to say I you know
I think the likelihood of this of us getting any building out of this 3A program is probably low it's not going to happen anytime soon it may happen we may get one or two apartment build buildings we're not going to get
750 we're not going to get them all at once that's for sure um there there are far more opportune spots in this state for developers to go after than Norton yeah
and something that I know I mentioned at town meeting I mentioned a dozen times over the past year this is an overl District so it doesn't change the base zoning so if we put it on an area that is Zone commercial you can still put commercial there if you want to nothing
keeps you from doing that so I'd like to suggest though that we not try riding on any of those assurances and that we actually put it where it isn't going to happen yes no I think we're all moving in the same
direction there yes so Brandon is there and I see a hand raised in the virtual meeting um if you want to just to unmute and introduce yourself for the record please I assume uh you're talking about meon Noble it's all right uh Brandon
Noble won dney Farm Drive uh I am part of fincom excuse me um just a a couple of thoughts uh Paul I wouldn't bring up anything about schools or uh you know how many families there going to be
because even just 50 or 100 is going to put us in a very bad financial situation and if that's mentioned at Town you know town meeting or anything I I think uh residents are going to vote it down so I
I just my opinion um secondly uh you know uh thank you to the board um I you know just my opinion from hearing all this we're all saying the same thing um I know I can't make a motion if you will
but uh I think everyone has spoken and let's let's put it in the the the spot that they're not going to build um to Echo a lot of residents uh concerns and uh you know people reaching out to me um
I I I think we're all on the same page um as Laura said it's getting late um that that would be my suggestion is let's let's get it someplace where it's not going to be built um cuz if it does we're going to be in big
trouble correct thank you sir okay so any open space a builder will find a way to build yeah so just clarify I think uh I'm not seeing anybody new rush to the podium here so if anybody does want to speak Please Mr
seagull and if you can just lift the microphone up so you can uh or Seagle 28 County Road um I don't know I've I've been listening to several of these meetings this is the first time that I've heard Redmill Village and and the 40b project next to it being put on the
table it's never been presented and also what's Curious what's Curious is those are the only two residential developments that I heard you propose all of which are on this side of 495 understand 495 has had this side of
495 has had a traffic issue it started even before the linen Street proposal the the um Meep mea project identified Newland Street as being daytime and nighttime
over loss of service of F that was before the belt and after the belt since that time Avalon Easton has been built and in addition to which the Lenard Street project although less building has probably more parking in addition to
L Mile traffic now if you going to look at putting anything that granted it may not be built but looking at 700 50 units in this particular part of town would be disastrous let me finish but I have not heard any of there I'm sure there's other similar projects on the other side
of 495 that I haven't seen proposed and I don't know why they've all of a sudden I I realize Norton Glenn is probably a lwh hanging flute fruit and I don't I I understand its proposal but now to start throwing out Redmill Village and 40 be as as two other alternatives to satisfy
this condition I think would be outrageous thank you I will say I'll say Mr we did speak about East man in our last session and we had that on our list for Final discussion this week um speaking about the I know you've spoken
before about how that side of 495 of Norton has seen a lot of development recently and you feel I think you feel like you're taking kind of your unfair share of the burden of development in that area and I understand that um I think the reason
for the inclusion of the Len and splitting it up one of the feedbacks that we got from the school committee and the finance committee was to try to because the bylaw doesn't require one Co one District it requires at at least one
part one section of 25 acres or more and then split was split it between LG and JCS was the request from those groups so that's why there is some in one place and some in another
so that's why when Paul has his slides that anything is located with a what schools it feed into so and then I'd like to um I I'm sorry you never heard of those before I've actually come into this meeting done PowerPoint presentations on it more than
once but um no no yeah um but how however and I'm s so sorry you didn't get to catch those um but when you're talking about traffic and things let me when you're you're saying how many units this would add if you put it on East
Main apartments and let's say hypothetically someone tore that down and then build units that wouldn't hold the 750 that would actually that's only 10 square acres if we're talking just East Maine um and you build that up see
now how many units were there before so we are not adding toer traffic if that happens no that's what I'm trying to say and it's not likely someone is going to buy a bunch of more recently built um housing units to that are already filled
that's an expensive asset now because it's filled it's worth that much more okay it's no it's very unlikely someone's going to buy that to tear it down and build more housing that can't be done profitably and when you've taken away that profit that's really H that's our best protection ween it really is I
think we can't build it we can't just put it on the resz or something where it can't happen for that reason we have to put it somewhere that someone is allowed to build yeah I think I think we've covered the point well that questioned again so fair enough for me to respond I don't see any
additional hands raised in the virtual meeting um I think we've covered the bylaw to the degree that I really don't want to cover it in many sessions um does anybody have anything else from the board they want to add as
a comment or does anybody want to make a motion to move toward parcel selection this evening move we move toward parcel selection see seconded no I'll look for I wasn't looking for a motion to close
discussion it was a motion to put forth a section of parcels here yeah second you want me to mention a set of parcels yes oh as I kind of said at the beginning I think it makes sense let's vote as a board for a set of
parcels say well I have two then and because I want to put them one at a time forth separately then I'd like to make a motion that we also include East Main Apartments as one of our considerations okay I think that okay do you want that to be the
first one that we vote on or do you just want that to be part of the process part of the process I not pick you about when you vote okay okay we have a motion for East Main Apartments second we have a second
okay so we have a motion and a second to include the East Main Apartments Parcels in the parcel selection new additional discussion
okay I'll go through the r here just to make sure that it goes nice and simple um Rob I'll start with you yay Steve no okay Laura yes
Jim yes Eric yes and I will vote Yes so East Main Apartments is 5 to one okay my second motion is to include Redmill Village that means looking at it if we find it's not eligible for some
reason that would come out later but is to keep it or include it in our considerations right now at this time okay we have a motion for Redmill Village second and we have a second from Steve any further discussion on Redmill
Village okay Rob yes Steve yes Laura no Jim yes Eric yes I will vote no so Red Mill Village I believe that's four to
two Okay additional selections motion to include 138 barrows the TW property seconded okay we have a motion and a second to include
tweave my thinking there is it is relatively the same size as the Glenn while I appreciate that the Glenn we have a it's more useful to us by being 25 separate Parcels so we can
Whittle it down so that we are getting as close to the minimum required with a bit of a buffer as possible um the problem I see with the Glenn is the buildings are really old they were built
in 1972 they're 53 years old they are all on sewer um I I think it would be I think we should probably include both of them but I think the opportunity for
development is higher on Glenn than it is on the barrows property okay we have a motion in a second for TW on barrows additional discussion the fact that it's open space
and would be completely a net ad a population makes that a showstopper to me but there's no sewer I don't see like Elm Street that's not really stopping anybody yeah I think that's a red herring I I think the fact that it's net ad is what counts here it's not even
close to sewer it no I I think we I think we know that it's been vacant for 10 years and is a fire hazard but it's also empty so it has pluses and minuses um and 10 years might be under
okay um so we have a motion in a second any further discussion okay Rob no Steve yes Laura yes Jim yes Eric yes and I will vote Yes as
well okay additional options for partial selection a motion to include the Great Woods Parcels itemize them or can we just say it that way and just to clarify your
suggesting the Mansfield AV Parcels that Paul has shown the Mansfield AV Parcels from the Mansfield line down to the apartments next to Roach Brothers not including the mobile home park and not including the TPC that we there's no T yeah that's okay just
clarifying and making sure that we're not including that seconded okay we have a Motion in a second for the Mansfield Avenue's properties as presented additional discussion okay Rob yes Steve yes Laura
yes Jim yes Eric yes and now will vote Yes a motion to include the Norton Glenn parcels and including Libman Drive okay we have a motion for the Norton Glenn including is it Libman okay do we have a
second second we have a second Eric was at you yep okay any further discussion on inclusion of the Norton Glenn I feel sorry go ahead you go first may I just ask why you do include Libman Court those are undeveloped I'd prefer to
leave those out because I figured that's what we're sorry I I figure that's the the couple acres were whittling down I don't plan on why not Whittle it down now then yeah we can get rid of it now by not incl J knock it off right now okay so we are amending the motion
amend the motion the motion to exclude liman Drive okay Eric does your second still stand yes okay Rob did you have additional discussion on on that if you want to turn the mic again um yeah I just I'll point out they were commenting the age
of the buildings and uh the thing is still there is housing there I realized this would be a little denser so Norton would take a little bit extra out of this but that is not a terrible deal for the town if somebody tore that down and put new stuff in there and I going to
add that in my opinion if we're having the first floor retail and all a little bit of a village and some shops over there they're kind of No Man's landway out there um that wouldn't hurt the people around there just a thought but if the if our marcher orders are to put it
in a place where it won't be built does that qualify then um I'll clarify the marching orders put it in place where it won't be built or it really isn't going to be a significant net change for Norton if it did get built I think everybody has their own opinions on what we should be putting
forward here fair enough that's what I've been preaching though yes okay so we have a motion in a second for the Norton Glenn which excludes Lipman any further discussion okay Rob yes Steve yes
Laura Jim no Eric yes and I will vote Yes anything additional that anybody would like to profer otherwise I'd say we would look to close this discussion and move on and conclude our meeting did you have something you were you want I know you
didn't like my suggestion did you want to give your points or anything I think okay we've submitted it I just want to let CH be part of the public hearing so just want to make sure he was allowed to share all his thoughts yeah even the ones that don't agree with me Orin will
not be shy of sharing his thoughts okay any additional discussion okay I'm not hearing any additional discussion so I'll move on from this point in the agenda thank everybody for participating and we will look forward
to seeing you again in the future um so um one quick question did the final list end as East M Twee Redmill Mansfield AV and Norton Glenn everything that was put forward was voted yes yes
was that the and so that's an accurate list yes Rob thank you yes thank you so yes please if you could just come up to the microphone it's gonna happen again this is is it possible to check with Town Council as to whether Redmill
Village would qualify given it's basically under a condominium restriction which basically Master deed senses its age restricted if it is I think if there is let Do It um Paul from a timing
perspective I know we do need to work work on getting signs and notices out um do you feel there's time to do that research before that deadline couldn't we get let's I can ask councel
okay yeah if there's and if um if there is a deed restriction which makes that area incompatible with the state guidelines would the board like to
is the board in agreement that we would not want to notice it yes I'm in agreement yes yeah okay Rob does that answer your um yeah I was going to ask if I mean so we go
ahead and we proceed with it and we ask Town Council because you're C about timing Town Council came back says no you can't include that we just go oh okay they're up we don't care if we notice them or not well well if we notice them they will get will get a letter saying come to this
public hearing your property has been noticed for this yeah so we want to have that determination if possible before a notice goes out and before the entire Community shows up asking us what why we why we notice they're talking about an aged community that this if notice is
not necessary shouldn't go out to them they may end up getting notice because the 40b anyway because we're with 300 feet but getting them notice of their their location yeah um I'm going to welcome you to come visit because I don't want to tr I understand that people won't like it uh my research was
on the law and how that worked n it not understand understand it and not feel good about it there no okay I'm open to that being done though okay ask the question okay so we' started the in the
meeting and IID said we would put the minutes off until the end so now we're at the end so it's time to come back to the minutes here um prior to our after our last session I had gone through the list of open minutes and made a spreadsheet like I
said I would um and I highlighted seven minutes for us to try to approve at this session does everybody feel like they adequately reviewed them in order to vote or do people feel like we did
not if we did then I will move forward and okay so we'll start with the minutes of I'll just go from top to bottom in my sheet here we're going doing all the Planning and Zoning joint meetings starting with February the 13th
seconded okay any further discussion on the motion okay all in favor of approving The Joint meeting minutes from February the 13th please say I I I'll oppose abstentions abstention okay one
abstention next The Joint session from March the 13th I'll motion that we approve those minutes so moved seconded I think I actually motioned Laura so she a double motion but I think
it counts the same way um any additional discussion all in favor please say I I all opposed abstentions abstain okay next is the joint session from
April the 25th sorry um seconded okay any further discussion okay all in favor please say I I I thank you all opposed abstentions
Abend okay let's get late next is the June 4th joint meeting I'll motion that we approve those minutes second seconded okay any further
discussion hearing none all in favor please say I I opposed extensions okay next July the 9th I'll move that we approve those minutes
seconded okay any further discussion hearing none all in favor please say I I I opposed extensions okay two more next I'll move that we vote to
approve The Joint session meetings of August 1st seconded okay any further discussion hearing none all in favor please say I I I opposed
abstentions okay and last one from the October 24th joint meeting I'll motion that we approve those minutes seconded any further discussion hearing none all in favor please say I I
opposed extensions okay that concludes that anything else anybody would like to say in this Open Session before we adjourn I'll make a motion we adjourn
seconded any further discussion hearing none all in favor you say I I I opposed extensions thank you very much everybody have a good evening