i'll go ahead and call the meeting to order here this is the Norton Planning Board meeting of Tuesday April the 15th 2025 this is a hybrid public meeting so members of the public are welcome to participate in person or remotely in person we are at Norton Town Hall 72
East Main Street meeting is also available via Zoom meeting ID 638-9291060 there's also a dial in number to dial by phone meeting will be available in written cable access and on the Mort Media C Center's YouTube page after meeting the meeting's conclusion
for future sessions please be email questions to the board ahead of the meeting to Brian Carmichael town staff so they can be forwarded to the members and read prior to the meeting so that out of the way I'll call our meeting to
order we have six members here in person steve Warshaw Jim Arts Laura Parker Alan Boule and Eric Norris and Eric Rob Welch is joining remotely um for our agenda today we do have some items for planning board business and policies and the
minutes but we'll save those for the end of the meeting here uh I do want to start with a motion with an executive section here uh pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 38 section 2183 uh to discuss strategy relating to
pending litigation known as Presera Homebuilders LLC versus Griffin at all Bristol Superior Court 2473 CV0000396 declaring that discussing the matter in an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigated
position of the board vote regarding whether to go in to executive session as expected uh and votes may occur during the executive session um so I'll just state for anybody watching
that is generally something that we try to take first on our agenda uh with the expressed idea of uh getting town council out of the way first and letting them get on with the rest of their lives any further discussion prior to a
motion to go into executive session so moved motion to go to executive session allan had the motion rob is that a second okay i've sent a new link i've sent a
new link out to you Rob and and Rob and Rob okay thank you Erica i hear you're not muted just the wrong one Joe yeah she gave us the same the same length for both okay so we'll go through the role here to go into executive
session we will return back to open session after the conclusion so Steve I'll start with you yes jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob yes and I will
vote yes so we'll reconvene in the meeting room here at town hall and virtually for everybody for town council and we'll return shortly return shortly thank you okay thank you everybody the board's now returning from its executive session
and resumeuming with the rest of our open session this evening for our April 15th meeting i'm just going to give one second for our remote member to rejoin the meeting here and then we'll get
going right here okay perfect we were just I didn't see it on our screen Rob so no worries hey mom how you doing okay fantastic so the next item on our agenda uh we have two related items here we have an
ANR and a continued special permit and site plan discussion for 225 South Worcester Street um this is a project that originally heard on March the 25th um so in terms of sequencing with these
um I think it's appropriate for the board to take them both together hear the discussion for all for the project as a whole uh and then we can vote on the ANR first and then the such permit site plan review second as it uh as
appropriate um any discussion that makes sense to everybody okay so I'll ask if the applicant would like to just come forward and give an update on the proposal and changes from our last session here um and Paul I don't know if
you want to pull up just the uh the updates here as the um the it goes through goes through the uh requests here sure i don't know if you want to start with the ANR since that's you know you kind of explain that and then
Yeah how however you want to we're taking them both together so however you want to lay out the narrative of what you're looking to do with the changes with the ANR as well as the updates to the proposal we try to discuss it all and then we can vote on the ANR first and then incorporate that into the other
decision perfect yeah you answered my first question if we can kind of talk about it all together which is what we're doing that was the goal yes otherwise we get into which point are we talking about perfect no much easier i appreciate that uh so for the record Ryan New Valley Heritage Realy uh applicant on the matter i just wanted to
start with a little bit i've worked with Paul a lot over the last couple weeks on kind of dissecting this and and putting it in a format with the input from the board that hopefully uh makes a lot of sense so I just wanted to kind of state with a updated
narrative of kind of where we're at and then Peter uh can take over on obviously the technical questions and stuff so um coming out of the last meeting uh with working with Paul what we decided is uh originally we had put forth the common driveway special permit cuz we didn't
really know uh with the board what made the most sense for the kind of unique layout with the project with the multiple lots the two different zoning districts and and everything what we decided was um to approach this with the ANR just to combine the four lots into
one parcel so that the frontage for the entire property was recognized with the the frontage that we have on South Worester Street um which is you know well in excess of the minimum required um in essence if uh the board is
receptive to how we're proposing things the uh special permits and the site plan review would um encompass the the roadway approval so in essence we would be rescending the common driveway application and the roadway layout would be approved under the special permits
and the site plan review that's kind of the thought process there um as a private way correct correct as a private way uh which in the design if uh we can pull up detail sheets as needed but uh we haven't changed anything from the
initial design of the roadway it was designed to meet your roadway standards not driveway standards it it was never 18 ft or 20 ft it's 24 feet of pavement uh sidewalks one side um a culde-sac which a couple other sheets we can bring
up you know maybe as Peter goes through things later uh we did a whole fire department uh turning radius that shows the the biggest apparatus that they have sent through the fire department you know working through the roadway um and we got responses back that they're
satisfied with all that um so that's just as far as the roadway design standards uh a couple other milestones I can mention that we went through over the last couple weeks there was a lot of discussion about the uh landscape layout meeting site plan review standards and
then also relative to the abutters uh we did do a landscape plan with a landscape architect uh paid specific attention to the um couple residential properties that were neighboring and did a large amount of evergreen plantings to do some
screening there happy to hear any input on those as we go through it as well as the street trees and and other requirements uh same thing with the lighting design plan similar there i think the the screening and the landscape plan is much more important as far as the abutters go and everything
but there was a full lighting plan done so the lighting we have no washing over onto the other properties it's it's contained on the property um and I'll kind of close with one of our other big things we did have conservation last night um the storm water uh came back
with a clean bill of health that's all 100% through the consultant engineer review and conservation was basically ready to issue order of conditions last night we asked them to keep it open just because we knew we had planning board tonight in case there were any tweaks or
changes but conservation um and and Paul can echo that is also Yeah I can confirm that i spoke with conservation director uh John Thomas this morning okay i know it's open things with multiple boards it's often okay who's
going to approve it first and conditioning right yes so we we basically do have conservation done but we left it open to allow planning board to have uh your say on things um and then we can handle both together so I mean I'll take any questions but technical things I'll I'll certainly
turn over to Peter so okay um I know we have the ANR plan up here i'm not sure if it makes sense to look at the um the plan with the the duplexes and the rest of the properties on the site just to kind of get a picture of it the ANR is just changing
the lot lines it doesn't necessarily touch on the uh the actual development that's going to have it on the site so just to make sure that everybody's uh thinking about this in the right frame of mind and if we want to take a look as we scroll through that map just going to mention
the landscape and the lens the landscaping and lighting plans um especially the the landscaping plan want to take a look at since that was something that we specifically talked about at our last session so we'll just pull that up here
in terms of initial questions from the board anything specific uh based on the initial intro here from the applicant so the special permits for this would be duplex and cluster development is that
correct and wetland protection and the wetland protection correct uh the roadway length is that a waiver situation or is it within standards it's it's slightly over the thousand square feet um if the board would like
to do it as a waiver I I I think it's under site plan review not subdivision control so I think it's with your authority if you're granting it it's kind of the the waiver sort of implied i don't think it needs to be but I don't want to be the procedural person to say
that um if it's if it's out of the spec then it would make sense for it to be a waiver i would agree what's the exact distance you know it's it's around 1260 1260 it's only slightly right and this is no individual lots it's not a subdivision it's a cluster right it's a
it's a a cluster yep and uh the duplexes in the village commercial it will all be privately held um as we discussed last time I anticipate and welcome uh the condition of the condominium documents the HOA docs to be fully vetted by the
board uh or you know staff and town council at some point in the future um that's all understood and so do we how do we work with
the where it is a split district cluster development is allowed in the R60 but it's not allowed in the village commercial mhm the majority of this project takes place in village commercial it enters through village
commercial is the are we applying the cluster from the residential side and and saying that that allows it to cross that whole Paul did you want to speak to just from your perspective on Right um so I did speak with town
council about this and she did say it's not an issue if it crosses multiple zoning districts so the special permit would be specifically for clustering in the R60 portion of it okay but does she did she take notice
that cluster developments are explicitly not allowed in village commercial we're we're applying it where the duplex special permit in the village commercial and then what triggers is the lot coverage which it's we're we're allowed up to 50% lot coverage and we're at
about 11 or 12% so well well below that and where village commercial allows you know multiple principal uses that's what we're applying so that's why the two special permits and then collectively they're all able to be on the one private lot which is why we presented it
that way with the site plan so it I I understand what you're saying but for the board's tech technical understanding so going forward any village commercial lot could in essence become a plus for
development if we allow this one that means any village commercial lot could add as many houses as they can fit well this one does have R60 in it so that I think is the delineation there
if it was pure village commercial I don't think that makes sense at all but he is saying he's not using the cluster for the village commercial he's saying it's because of village commercial standards that he's allowed to do this he's saying village commercial standards
alone is what allows him to put something of 15 or whatever duplexes in the village commercial side yeah I think 11 in the the village commercial and again it it's a unique project um with the the split zoning and
I think that makes it unique and so we're we're trying to work with the circumstances we have and the zoning as we understand it and that's this is why we you know combined everything together as as one lot and are presenting it this way um and I I think it it works and I I don't
think it applies to every other property you might have in town every other property is going to have their own unique set of circumstances also so but e either you're you're trying to convince me that either all of the units that are in the village commercial side are allowed by
village commercials description or that the cluster development is allowing you to do it you It's not both as I see it cluster developments are not allowed in village commercial if we as a board agree that 15 units and a
meandering road count in any village commercial by its own standards that's the standard for all village commercial going forward from now on okay I think I understand what you're saying is that what you're looking for is the units that are in the village
commercial so closest to the road need to stand on their own with the village commercial zoning is that I I believe so correct paraphrase i I believe they are supposed to be meant as some sort of plaza or entity if it's multiple
business buildings not necessarily specifically a residential cluster development there's no other way to describe what that is except for that's what it is and it's explicitly not allowed in village commercial okay
other comments from the board here obviously this is a complex sounding issue i'm not sure if we're we are hold to the standard of like a court that if once we make a decision that it becomes precedent i don't believe that's the
case but it is sure does appeal the appear to be the case and it sure does appear to set the precedent right and the state's going to look at that going forward in terms of applicants legal standing to appeal
sorry I don't think we heard that on the Zoom from the microphone sorry i'm concerned about it doesn't set precedent for us but in the eyes of the court does it meaning does an applicant then have legal standing to sue us if we don't
allow a cluster in village commercial on a another development okay i think we're exposed we did that i I I think we wanted a more clarification from town council than what we got i think for the the brief statement that I
I read I was just expecting more because this seems more complicated to me it was sort of non-committal yeah yeah it it sounds okay okay i mean from from how we've designed this I mean if we carve these up into you know
still under a special permit but multif family lots I mean we could we could jam a lot more density in and you know town houses with sixunit buildings 8-unit buildings uh multiple lots i I from reading through the zoning I I don't think you can't because it's a wetland
protection district which only allows for single family housing it doesn't the special permit allows for any allowed use if we grant it right right but any any allowed use as long as we meet the criteria and satisfy board health and
and uh conservation which we have um those uses are are allowed because they're they're a special permit but they are allowed uses so um and even top of the shop which is a by right use if we did you know again speaking to that there was a concern about the abutters
and residential uses i mean we could put lots of density with commercial buildings and residential above it and all sorts of things i think this is a lot less impact and a lot less density than even what could be done by right um I think the the cluster not necessarily
being in the zoning for village commercial is because the density is already allowed to go up to 50% coverage it's not the cluster is more thought of in the residential zones so it wasn't really thought of in the village commercial and we're not presenting it as a cluster it may look like one but
we're presenting it under the special permit duplexes multiple uses which which is allowable so and I I I've been on some other boards and everything and and most boards that I've listened to um
every project is unique and you don't necessarily set precedent by any particular project if we didn't have the split zone in this we would be presenting something possibly different but would meet that zoning requirement we're kind of bouncing between the two and trying
to put something that's cohesive and from a planning standpoint makes sense that's at least how I was looking at it when we tried to develop it i still think if someone comes back and says "Well you allowed it on Bill's commercial here." The fact they don't say split zone they're going to go this lot here was Bill's
commercial and you allowed it so I I do think we're exposed i I think what we're saying here is a reason why that magnum matter would not stand up in our defense if we were being aggressive but also I I will state that that's one of the main reasons that
from the beginning I always plan on keeping the road private i think if you were looking at it of trying to make a a public roadway you know cluster type project and everything but it was always intended to be private with the shared septic system and everything else that also is a you know makes the project
unique in that sense that we're we're state stating right at the beginning we're keeping it all private road if it was a public road each lot well it would be individual lots and they would all need frontage it wouldn't be designed in this manner right but you could do a cluster with individual lots i believe I
don't know if there I don't have it in front of I don't know if clusters are all required to be private or not but generally we have started since the town would have to accept the road generally we have required that they are private until as sometime as they're not
um in those cases there does need to be a condomination or some other body that governs it and maintains it in this case you already would have that with the existing association um but that's generally if you build it so the town
may accept it in the future but until that time you have to make sure that there's a plan to maintain it in theory so additional questions for the applicant here about the update i was going to say if we wanted
to shift and maybe look at the landscaping plan here just to for a variety unless we somebody else had anything further rob did you have an additional comment no no no i'm good my hands open sorry
do we have the is the landscaping or is that should be at the end of the end of the set second from the end [Applause] right up right there okay so there's the landscaping proposed so we have
plantings behind the existing residential uses plantings behind those front two duplexes and then those are street trees i assume the circles by the driveway there correct correct are those added later in the process
they look like they're look like they're almost handdrawn but they may be hand they're just different species I think like each species has its own yeah they're different so and then the wetland area would be a an
existing buffer because we not disturbing that so that would stay all tree off the back of the site essentially well right through the middle where the crossing is you can see the wetland flags that go back towards South Worester Street that'll stay
undisturbed so there'll be a big like a big not big a wooden area right there i I'll just say I think I think you came across on the Zoom but just the microphone is what feeds into the mic which goes into the I'm sorry no it's
okay no no so I'm just I just I'll repeat so where you see the crossing to the to the um the east towards South Worester Street that whole area there between the 25 ft no disturb on both sides that will stay as a wooded area
and undisturbed that's why we don't propose anything in that location there okay just one and Paul as part of this request we're not being asked for any landscape waiverss at this time
no I know sometimes our landscaping requirements are intense so just wanted to check i think I might have been the one that brought up the landscape and I'm I'm pleased i think I did it i can't remember um but I'm I'm pleased that
they took our feedback and ran with it and added what they did well the landscaping plan is a requirement of the application so correct but I also said heavy screening to the residential that's what they did
yeah and the commercial buildings in between there have a I think they have a vinyl fence in the back anyway with trees behind them so into that wetland area behind I think
that's the pool the pool building correct so additional questions comments so if we want to go back to the zoning discussion we can i was trying to change the uh yeah I get anything else out of the way that we wanted to talk through
with this application i think I've I've worked myself around into a logical spot and I'm just going to specify that I'm not generally a fan of multif family
in the wetland protection we have denied a special permit for that previously um however in looking at the dimensional requirements for single family and village commercial it is only 18,000
square ft um so I don't see they could probably achieve the same if not more if we asked for them to come back to do what was allowed by right in the wetland protection district which is single family
only so that's kind of where I am is I think this is they're right it probably is the the better scenario basically premier view with the existing zoning they could replace these with
single families they'd have more development on 18,000 foot lots yeah whereas if this was all R60 they'd need a 60,000 ft lot they could cluster it if we allowed them to cluster it but the R60 is a very small portion well it goes
all the way to the back but they can't touch some of it so Oh is that why yep i couldn't quite figure out i I think there's a whole tail of the property that goes back on the video it was looking at the board and he
was pointing out specific things on that screen which the video wasn't picking up so I was kind of going by and and that'll beeneral open space to the and is there the intent is to donate the rest of the land
whatever the process is it could be held by the homeowners association with a p a permanent restriction it can be donated if that's the preference we're we're fine with any of that okay so Laura there you see the the tail there that's more of a challenge to develop
back there for sure yeah i did notice it was a lot of wetland a lot of it's wetland that doesn't count towards the the calculation and everything anyway and did you exceed your upland exceeded the 35% correct pretty extensively i appreciate you're noticing too i I did choose this footprint of house because
um it is lesser impact obviously I know there's some duplexes being built um around town that are a much larger footprint you know much larger space can get a higher dollar value we purposely tried to keep these compact kind of in the spirit of a walkable you know
tighter community less impact environmentally um and remind me of the number of bedrooms please sorry three bedrooms each unit yep um to try to keep it you know unit for unit essentially if we did a different layout with multifamilies or even single
family houses that it's relatively representative with you know around what we would be anyway just in a little bit of a different layout that I think is better receptive to the market and to the town and to the environmental impact
okay and with all these I want I think we may have covered this before Paul but is there a proposal for affordability on the project it doesn't qualify because this is not multif family so they that provision only triggers
when you have three or um multif family development not multi-unit but multif family so that would be anything three or more units and these are duplexes so duplexes are not considered multif family by our bylaw even though it's a
bunch of duplexes on one lot in theory se separately and related though I know it came up at the last meeting too about some of your special permit language about uh you know on-site and off-site improvements and and things of that nature i'm a pretty reasonable developer
if the board understanding that this is a special permit they're not by right uses if the board has some suggestions on what they'd be comfortable with to see on this project related to off-site improvements considerations of affordability or things of that nature
even if not required i'm I'm the type of developer who likes to have a back and forth kind of dialogue and I'm you know interested to hear what the Ford's take on any of that would be if that would you know help help the process make this project a little bit more unique i went on satellite myself and looked at the
sidewalks going all the way up to the railroad tracks from the from the property because it came up at the last meeting so I I looked at that you know if there's anything that the board has that that would be a consideration I'll entertain anything that anyone would like to propose from from there the
tracks is probably the best portion of sidewalk on that side of the road for a quarter of a mile or probably more heard but just just a just a general just a general point you know no I appreciate it i I think I was more just making sure that we've had a a lot of
affordable housing discussion recently as you may have noticed so just making sure that we're uh if there are points that we need to incorporate in this discussion that we do so sure but thank you there's another clarification on the on
the uh paperwork it says multif family is that what's being applied for on the paperwork our paperwork shouldn't say have any multi family it it still does should have said duplex okay that's just a clerical error then okay
yeah it does say right on the uh right on the plan that's on the screen there in the third site plan special segment for multif family residential development plan clarifate that everywhere except on the title on the uh the template
those templates are still there okay i was trying to wonder if there was some sort of loophole where all of the duplexes were considered one singularly owned multif family spread throughout multiple buildings like an apartment complex but only two units per
apartment building but they'd have to be held under single ownership not condos to be I don't think that they would yeah i think multif family according to our existing definitions is three units in
one building three or more but it doesn't necessarily consider lots of tubes okay as a multif family kind of use it doesn't so you could do six units in two separate three unit buildings but not two unit
buildings if they were threeunit buildings they would trigger as multif family yeah so just for clarification in case the board is interested in this if we were to ask if we could condition 10% affordable
would that be amendable um I'd consider it okay if if that's because of the uniqueness of the situation and if the board felt like that's what was needed to condition the project I I would definitely
consider that thank you Brian you just scan back to a sheet that shows all the the duplexes and the the road there whichever that's too small for scale ed you want to go back to the first one I showed you
yes please i know you mentioned you went through with fire department that works you went through the fire department i saw we have the training radius on this plan as well so that makes sense from a fire approval perspective um additional comments questions for the
applicant here otherwise this is public hearing i'll just make the call to see if there's anybody joining us in person or remotely who would like to make a comment from members of the public uh and I'll ramble here for 20 seconds or so in case anybody on on the Zoom meeting needs to
find the mute button here just to see make sure that anybody who wants to speak has the opportunity to do so not seeing a rush to the microphones virtually or in person here so I'll come back to the board in
terms of additional comments questions you want to just pull the ANR plan up since that'll be probably the first motion sure the ANR plans take these log lines and erase them correct second i think Paul it may be helpful just to
um organize the different decisions that we're going to have to make here because I think there's probably five if I can count there will be the ANR yep and then we have uh special
permits for duplex for duplex and village commercial in R60 the residential cluster in R60 the wetland protection district and the site plan and the wetland protectors for duplexes in the wetland protection
district or wetland protection district in general in general but you you know again you have to determine is that use is a duplex acceptable in this as it is allowed as as a by special
permit but then determine is that a use that would have an adverse impact on the wetland resource i got a technical there um if the duplexes within the village commercial are not being considered as part of a cluster do they all need their own
individual special permit as if they were individual primary uses principal uses each one's being considered as its own individual principal use no individual vote i I wouldn't think so i mean I guess whatever your vote is it's
going to be on it would be applicable to everything i I haven't Your perspective is it would be fine to make a motion for duplexes in the village commercial and it would accompany all of the ones that are currently cited in the village commercial district on plans so
you could break it out to say duplex one for duplex 2 for duplex 4 right right and you could break out your vote to have it for duplex and village commercial and a separate vote for duplex and R60 okay okay but I think it would it will
probably help as we get into this just to uh understand what sequence we need to take them all in because there's a lot start with A and R first yeah that's the
frontage hinges on that approval yeah i guess I would before we do that I think my perspective would be and this is a question for the applicant if you have a preference one way or the other if we vote on the ANR and we sign the ANR
following the meeting and the decision for the later decisions is not in favor of the special permits does that ANR become something you don't like um not necessarily something I don't
like but if it would make sense for that to be last based on your question if that answers your question because we're only doing the ANR because of this format right um we would I was going to suggest something like
a say a straw poll if we're in favor of moving forward with this on the special permits in general then let's take the ANR first so we have the frontage procedural fair enough i I would agree with that okay does that make sense for everybody just to kind of make sure that we're all
on the same page here we'll do just kind of we don't need to do um this isn't a formal vote but just say whether we're we think that we would approve the special permits and the other
application in front of us and then we can proceed in the ANR in that way i'm fine with it okay so Allan yes mar yes eric yep yes steve no
rob do you feel like you're leaning one way or another here i'm leaning though to be honest okay um yeah and that of course would leave me as the deciding vote in terms of the
special permanent that needs a supermajority uh which is why I always end up going last um don't Yeah I think at the initial discussion I was leaning towards no but I think I've moved toward yes just in terms of
looking at it from the what would you do by right perspective so I think that's where I'm leaning with it as well that's what swayed me mhm yeah because it's basically what is the alternative at this point you're looking at the property something's going to
happen what is going to happen here and this is what that's what we're making more control over this oh so how how many single family homes could he put by rent they'd only need 18,000 square feet per
they still need a subdivision approval right i would assume yes they they don't have the right to just fill that whole thing with single family homes they have to meet a certain amount of requirements right
and it has to be individual lots yes so so we're we're making a decision here yes in that this is what the applicant has presented and with the understanding that they could come back with just a single family
subdivision and do essentially the same thing at a higher density potentially on five mostly dry acres so that's a lot of houses especially with only 18,000 yep so I think we've gone through the straw
poll here and we kind of feel like we've got the five that we would need for a special permit so I think order of operations here we would um we can do the ANR by itself you want
to close the public and then the ANR doesn't need a public hearing close but we could do that um so if somebody wants to make a motion to close the public hearing we can um but the ANR can proceed without it so further comments questions
otherwise I'd be looking for some kind of motion a motion to approve ANR 11 seconded okay we have a motion and a second to approve ANR1 any further discussion again this is just the ANR merging four lots into
one lot okay hearing no further discussion as we have one member vote i'll go through the role for the vote here steve yes jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes
rob no and Alo yes do we have a miler or anything with us tonight or Okay we don't need to sign it now we'll just lay it out on the table and Okay so I had motion to close the public
hearing for SP 19 and SPR12 okay we have a motion to close the public hearing is there a second second okay motion and a second uh before we do so I'll just go to the again and say are
you comfortable disclosing public hearing at this time is there anything else you wanted to say not okay so we have motion in a second close the public hearing any further discussion okay hearing none closing
public hearing steve yes sorry jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob yes and vote yes sorry
Stephen okay and so Paul coming back to your list here um so actually before we do that specific conditions that we want to include as part of these decisions so site plan review is the only one that I wrote down
was be the waiver on the road leg roadway length would the other conditions that we talked about go with the special permit you want them all on everything I guess is the question i think that makes sense on the site plan i agree are there other conditions that we wanted
to include other than our standard conditions i know Laura you asked the applicant about affordability if you wanted to include that or um I'll ask the question is the board is that something the board would like to consider
yes i can't say no because they already said they were kind of in favor of it yeah why not it only helps us keep up our stock yeah um do you want to keep that as affordable
or include language i I know our standard affordable language also includes like payment and loo and those kinds of things so just the whole I I I think the whole continuum of those options yeah specifically to be affordable yeah
i'd like it to be affordable but Okay kind of their point of asking 10 10% so that would be no more than what we already require on a multif family right so that would be three units that's 30 units yes
okay additional conditions that we wanted to discuss they mentioned off-site mitigation anything like that i think I think my view is that the affordability is kind of what they're is what we're accepting instead of anything like that in terms of sidewalks or
something like that obviously it's um we can if there are additional conditions that we want to add that's our discretion but does that tie in more with the wetland protection district also in terms of what you just said i'm just
trying to remember back to the bylaw oh sorry go ahead no I just thought of something i want to put the conditions that we did on Zero Reservoir with regards to um insecticides
fertilizer um because it's snow because it's above because well because it's the wetland protection district yes and its location okay so general idea is the conditions are don't put bad stuff in the wetlands yes please
okay and make sure it's part of the homeowners post association so not in any of the common Yeah and the in general I think with the cluster there's requirements for us to have the condo docks and everything else as part
of the process so that doesn't need to be a specific condition and it's just we'll have we have conditions that we'll put in there that require certain documentation to ensure um to identify the ownership and maintenance of the
open space and the private way and the culvert we will add that too okay i'll I'll add that yeah operation and maintenance of the
Yeah privately okay anything else that we wanted to do in terms of conditions other than that i'll ask Paul to actually say what I asked him to start a few minutes ago okay so the
first vote that we'd be looking to do here Paul would be the you can do the the special permit for duplexing village commercial and R60 unless you want to take that separate let's take them as one for each zone
okay if that if nobody else if nobody has any objection to that so the the special permit approval criteria is your general which you know socially and economically desirable satisfy an existing need advantages outweigh by far the detrimental effects that such
effects on the neighborhood and environment shall not be significantly greater than could be expected from development of the permit or special permit were denied that the applicant has no reasonable alternative available to accomplish this purpose and that specific conditions to minimize detrimental effects and protect the
neighborhood have been imposed and if necessary secured by bond or otherwise okay so I had suggested one vote on special permit for the zone for each zone so that' be two for the duplexes one in village commercial and one in the R60
so I'll make a motion to approve the duplex use in the village commercial zone in regards to SP19 second we have a motion and a second is there further discussion on that motion okay hearing no further discussion I'll
go through the role here steve I'll start with you no jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob no and I would vote yes
same motion to allow duplex use in R60 for SP19 second okay we have a motion and a second by Alan and Eric any further discussion on that motion okay hearing none i'll go through that
whole sequence again steve no jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob no and Al yes so I think the next one would be a motion to approve a cluster
development in R60 correct for SP19 second okay we have a motion and a second alan and Eric again any further discussion on that motion okay hearing no further discussion steve
I'll start with you again no jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob no yes i think the next one's going to be uh
to allow duplex use in the water protection wetland protection district correct seconded okay thank you Ellen and Eric for the motion and the second again any further discussion on this motion hearing none steve no jim yes
laura yes alan yes eric yes rob no yes final will be to approve SPR 12 with snare to conditions and the waiver on roadway length seconded
anything further on that motion we have a motion in a second anything further on that um Paul do you think there are any other conditions specific to the site plan that we need to incorporate here no I believe we have everything any further
discussion okay Steve I'll start with you again no jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob yes
okay and Paul the next one that is it that is it okay i thought we had more coming okay would you like me to make another motion i know which one I want you to win no not yet okay that concludes our discussion
on SPR19 and SP19 SPR 12 and the ANR 11 so before we leave we do have the ANR down by Brian so we don't have to sign that now will like be bringing the decision back i think it probably makes sense even
though the board's composition will change but to just approve the final thank you very much everybody thank you everyone have a night good luck with election is there a motion to adjourn no we have more things
to cover ah so okay um next item on our agenda is just two um decisions from our last session do we have to continue that other public thank you want to do that um thank you Paul so we do have a
continuance requested for 361 RO Colony Road that was for the garage trade service building with 12 parking spaces which was continued a couple of times so they're asking for continuance to our May the 6th session so moved
second okay we have a motion and a second any further discussion on the request to continue are we are we particularly busy on the sixth because that'll be the first day we come back right after the election i'm not going to be busy i know um it won't be as busy as the last few meetings that is not a
fair comparison best I have no it's you have also two uh one Dean Street has been continued to that and I we have something else we have zero South Washington that's right zero
South Washington it will be here too okay so I'll second the motion okay we have a motion in a second any further discussion okay hearing none I'll reverse it this time rob I'll ask you first
um yes Eric yes Alan yes Laura yes Jim yes Steve yes and Alo yes to keep everybody guessing here okay so that that continued we do
have uh two draft decisions here just to review um one was 10 West Main Street and one was 408 Old Colony Road um and you voted on those decisions
there last session but just if there were any questions comments concerns about the drafts paul did you want to make anything for it laura uh gave me some comments um which I've included on a hard copy but I can also pull those up if anyone wants to go through either of
the decisions but they were pretty standard bring me the marijuana um I pulled conditions from uh the Canana special permit um so and then with with 10 West Main Street we've got some conditions in
there for affordability that's that are pretty standard uh do bear in mind that's actually going to the historic district commission on Thursday so we did put con you know provisions in there that this doesn't go into effect uh until the historic district commission
approves it and they said if the HDC does not then they're coming back to us and they knew that right okay laura did you want to do just a summary of your of what you had added or anything specific or not ask you to pull
up a track file but just No it most of it was technical it was like they forgot to put square feet after the number okay there was nothing material in there at all okay um one thing
uh I added under board discussion was um guest parking there were questions about guest parking that wasn't included within that section that was literally
technical so just in terms of the over the initial handshake of what did we talk about at the meetings yes okay yep so anything further on these decisions otherwise we can consider them approved and they can be signed
and move forward okay okay so with that we'll go back up to our general business here business and policies um Paul is there anything that you wanted to just discuss with the group
here in terms of um other committees or anything that are discussing anything that we've worked on or Yeah we actually had a um meeting last last night the finance committee they did vote in support of your
recommendations for both the MBTA and the recottification recottification was unanimous there were um I think there were three or four dissents uh with NBTA but the majority still voted for it and
um 73 it was 73 okay and then uh Thursday night select board is scheduled to review those two items as well okay and again never mind that's that's it and then May 19th is
the town meeting yes okay there's only a couple articles well we have the first one then we have to wait a little while right probably till the next day um just kidding hopefully not kidding okay hopefully
just kidding I should say okay so the last thing that we had on our agenda this evening was approval of minutes I believe prior other than a couple of housekeeping things to close the evening um so a few weeks ago I think we had two
sets of minutes that there was a bit of confusion on just the dates and the file names i think we fed that up correct and then we had five sets of minutes that we had originally said we'd take on the first and we pushed that and
we decided it made more sense to cover those this evening um so I would generally think that we would go oldest first was it the the 910 ones that we thought were the conflict was that
the Brian were those the two that we needed to resolve one of them was September and we had stopped in October right i think that the two that are dated on 910 was the question that we stopped on the 25th correct
yeah that was 910 um so one I assume is the 10th and one is like 924 correct that's just a the file name was the question correct okay
so look to go through these if we have any questions comments motion to approve the minutes of 910 2024 seconded okay have a motion in a second to approve any further
discussion okay hearing none we will go through the role for all of these sorry everybody steve I'll start with you yes jim yes laura yes allan yes eric yes rob
yes and I will vote yes motion to approve the minutes of September 24th 2024 second thank you for the motion and the second any further discussion hearing none steve yes jim
yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob yes yes motion to approve the minutes for October 15th 2024 seconded hold on october 15th sorry October 8th we'll go i was just
going down the list seconded okay we have a motion in a second for October the 8th any further discussion hearing none steve yes jim
yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob yes and I will vote yes next we have the 21st of October these are the ones that we originally scheduled to take on the
1st so we have a motion motion to approve second or twice i'm just not seeing it on Brian's list i was just going down Brian's list you're not seeing it well I just I was just going on the latest list that Brian
sent out i got one date wrong and so I corrected it okay that wasn't the new list okay got it so this is it's the same thing it's just I got the date wrong
okay got it so 15th is the next one so take the document 10 15 24 is that your Yeah okay thank you so moved second
okay we have a motion in a second any further discussion hearing none steve let's start with you yes jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes
rob yes and I will Yes as well five more everybody next is 1029 yes yes yes so moved okay motion in a second from Alan and Eric not quite there and we do have a
two more things to do after this too quick ones but so Steve I'll start with you again yes jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob
yes and Al yes this is October the sorry November the 12th sequentially so moved seconded okay thank you Alan and Eric any further discussion on November the 12th
hearing none steve I'll start with you again yes jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob yes and I will vote yes
next we have November the 19th so moved seconded okay hearing no further discussion I'll go through the roles steve yes jim yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob
yes and guess and last but not least we have December the 17th i got December 3rd on this list also we just did that i'm sorry wrong one
so December the 17th you don't want to do it again no so moved on the 17th then seconded okay any further discussion hearing none go through the role one last time here steve yes jim
yes laura yes alan yes eric yes rob yes and I will go yes and I think that concludes our catchup of all of the minutes from when Brian was doing way too many things when Paul wasn't here so thank you everybody
for getting us through that long tedious list um Paul disappear on us paul Ah he disappeared on us smart okay I think we have one other thing that Paul has that I'll let him cover um but before we
journ this evening I just wanted to mention that we do have the election coming up um something that I wanted to say just as we go into the new board um for everybody to say I think I expressed this a year ago when we constituted this
board um I'm generally not looking to be the chair after this election um make a motion so I'm just going to state that out loud so you guys can take that how you will doesn't mean we can't nominate you i can always decline the
nominations correct so that's a dangerous game i'll turn around and nominate you so um I think I've been in the chair for almost 5 years at this point you're doing really good at it i think the quote I used a year ago was
uh from from Mark Twain politicians and diapers need to be changed often and for the same reason they're full of something so um so I just wanted to say that before we adjourned and then Paula you had we had one additional thing here
we have one member who is uh leaving us here so Jim I give you a certificate of appreciation here for your service to the planning board over these last three years thank you very much as you can see we
spared no expense on using a using a piece of paper from the copier but um black and white even that just means you have to make the better that much you have to make the last motion that's what that paper is oh okay can I make said motion
i have nothing else i make a motion to adjourn seconded seconded okay okay we have a motion to adjurnn anything further to discuss hearing none I'll go through the role one more time steve yes jim yes laura
yes alan yes eric yes rob yes i'll vote yes we are adjourned everybody thank you very much thank you all very much it was very nice