Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Welcome everybody to tonight's planning board meeting in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 38 section 20. Notice is hereby given that the planning board is meeting tonight, Wednesday, March 25th, 2026 at 7 p.m. Members of the public are welcome to attend this remote only meeting by the remote Zoom connection that was provided earlier. Since we are over Zoom uh remote uh we do have to do roll call vote uh whenever things come to a vote. But first I'll introduce uh the board that is here in attendance thus far. Um if you could respond with here and your uh video on when called upon that would be helpful. uh for mass uh open meeting laws. Uh Melissa Mayo

here. Chris Monford, I am here. Thank you. Gary Serill, I am here. Thank you, sir. Uh I think that's everybody on the board. And then of course we have town planner Rich McCarthy. And I do see our uh administrative assistant Betsy Vil is also on the call. So that's great. and we're expecting Dan Seager to join us later. Um, first order of business, I believe, is the public hearing starting at 7 PM for discussion on proposed zoning bylaw amendments for an upcoming town meeting. Is that correct?

That's correct. Yes. So, the clerk isn't with you quite the moment. So, the option is um somebody else could read the notice or you could wave the reading of notice, whichever. Yeah, I'm willing to accept a motion to wave the uh the reading of the notice. So, moved and second. Okay. All in favor? Uh roll call vote. Uh Melissa Mayo, I. Chris Monfort,

I. Gary Surl Gary Sullivan votes I. Any objections? None heard. Okay, motion passes. So in terms of sweet sequence on the agenda, the open space bylaw is the first one that's up for discussion. Okay. And let's see I will just gonna share the

Can you see the bylaw on the screen? Yes. Article 20. Well, technically it's XX. We don't have a article number yet, but

Oh, okay. Um so just a introduction to uh the proposed changes. The um the proposed changes to the open space bylaw would include a density bonus based on the a scaled density bonus based on the district which as you can see in the screen 20% for the R1 which is the 30,000 square foot district R2 which is 43560 which is the 1acre zone and then R3 which is the 55,000 square ft. the zoning district of the 40% uh density bonus. The purpose of creating the density bonus greater than what's presently in the bylaw is to balance off in terms of I say balance off provide opportunity for residential development which is single family we're talking about this isn't multifamily uh development single family zoning or single family development is to choose the pathway which would be through the the Norfick zoning bylaws rather than going around it in terms of what we all know as chapter 40B by incentivizing development to go through chapter excuse me the zoning bylaw then the other bylaws that are in effect become subject to development for instance the wetland bylaw general bylaw, earth removal bylaw and so forth. So it directs development towards the zoning bylaws rather than around it. Um

the other change which I'll just scroll down to and then we'll come back to it. Essentially is to create more flexibility in how you go about designing a development um be open space. So the open space would be you present a yield plan to the planning board showing that you meet the underlying zoning and then if the planning board would agree with that yield plan then you would be able to then proceed forward a definitive plan which would be as an open space plan. The proposed minimum changes u the minimum lot size is going from 20 to 15. the frontage is 75 and accordingly we're changing some of the setbacks um proposed to change those setbacks. So why are we doing that? Um twofold. one is like I said to create more flexibility. Um in today's terms of development wise while there's some people that do like much larger lots um there is a preference I think in general to have a smaller lot in terms of what you actually maintain with the trade-off being open space around the development. So this again is try to create that flexibility to do that. Um, the one thing I do want to say about the density bonus, um, it's not necessarily that all those developments in those different districts will actually be able to achieve that maximum bonus because they'll still need to meet the minimum requirements in terms of the open space requirements and all the lot sizes. While it's there, it may not be achievable. So just to point that out and I will those are pretty much line of shares. I'll pause here for discussion.

Can you maybe walk through some of the math or logic um that went into choosing the numbers uh the way that they were chosen?

Yeah. So the logic is just to increase the percentage is not mathematically derivative is just to provide a bump above what presently we have. So presently the with the change to back into this based on the inclusionary bylaw before the the 10% bonus open space essentially washed out. So you had to meet you still and you would today the 10% minimum. So essentially created open space development that satisfied the inclusionary bylaw requirements of 10% which you know was just changed last fall. It's not mathematically driven as percentage number to again try to incentivize. So, it's not I can't tell you I created some big formula um to do that. Well, so if the goal is to try to move developers away from 40B and into, you know, our own subdivision bylaws, um, I think it has to be mathematically driven, meaning how do we know that these density bonuses will change or motivate behavior differently? How do we know that? I guess from conversations with developers, I've propose some of these numbers is get some feedback on it. Nobody's come forward yet, so I don't know 100%. But um these these may work, may not work. this approach

is being proposed rather than going making wholesale zoning district changes which would be far more challenging and in fact probably would be uh I guess I would tell you probably not good from a land value perspective either talking with the assessor so I can't prove it out you know

previously it was 10% um Why what is why are they tiered by um the different residential districts? Just tiered based on overall density terms of you could less area. You don't need as big as an incentive to you know 30 30,000 square feet. um you don't need as much density bonus to make it more feasible necessarily in terms of that district. That district also has 150 ft of frontage. Yeah.

So, so development is a little bit more feasible than the R30 considering that the length of a dead end street under the regulations is 500 feet. So, we start to just map it out in terms of if you want to come in with a a roadway, 200 feet gets chewed up pretty quickly in terms of um you know, linear frontage being 200 feet. And quite frankly, honestly, 500 feet is an urban dead end length of a street. Not not in a community that has 200 feet of frontage and lots that are 3/4 of an acre above. Um, so it's kind of it's a compromised blending as opposed to say, "All right, well then, you know, do we go into other as aspects of the bylaw and the regulations to make those changes?"

Okay. I mean, I I like this conceptually. Um, it's better than other ideas that were floated earlier. So, I get it. I just want to better understand like what would 40% in R3 mean right versus 30 because like

so for instance um I can you know the one that I can tell you Trimberry Cranberry Heights is a proposed 40B that uh is has a a project eligibility letter for 51 units. the previous Cranberry Heights subdivision that was close to being approved um the applicant at the time uh withdrew it with prejudice um was 20 was the density under the uh R55 so 40% on top of that you know eight units so you're talking 28 single family homes Comparably speaking, the other one who when we took a look at was Palmetto that you saw a project eligibility letter for that was 373 Main Street. Um that proposal was for 84 dwelling units and a combination of twos, threes, and there's actually one single family home. That property is mixed between the R3 and R2 district. So the front is in the R2 and then the balance is in the R R3 which is the 55,000 square ft. So in that particular case, you might be able to get maybe let's call maybe seven or eight single family homes that could be done through an open space rather than proposal that's 84 units. So those are couple more recent examples I could tell you. Um, and we're we're seeing property that comes on the market and

people are, you know, as you probably know, the town exercised the right of first refusal on the property that was over on Ever Street. Yeah. Right. In the letter that was submitted to the town, they were con under consideration to do a 40B. um that area that zone is over there is is our three as well. So

that's a good explanation. Um and again like I I actually like this conceptually. Um and I think that using the two examples that you just mentioned, we could probably help visualize that what what that would look like, you know, um if this were to go to town meeting. Um, so yeah, I'll just stop there. Anybody else questions, concerns, comments?

Uh, my my concern, I mean, I conceptually, yes, the I like the idea, but just making these changes without knowing if it's actually going to one, if it's actually going to avoid 40BS, and two, I don't know that. I mean, we don't really 40Bs are not really what we hear that people in the town want. And we're basically trying to create zoning that is aligned with a 40B. So like 15,000 square ft, right? If that's the minimum, that's like over what's in Weights Crossing right now. It's about, you know, say.35 acres. Um those houses are still going for a million dollars. Um more than a million dollars on these small lots. And it's just like we're basically just creating we're not I don't know that we're solving any real problem. You know, when we talk about affordable housing or I know some of the legislators are working on bonuses or some sort of incentive for folks to um developers to create housing for the missing middle. This just seems like a smaller lot like we're trying to kind of chase 40B and be the same thing except have control over more aspects of it. It's still it's not going to help for density. It's still going to create density and it doesn't actually incentivize any smaller homes. It's kind of like more of the same of what we have except more of them because they can put more of them on the smaller lots.

I think chasing is a bad idea also because you're going to get so close and you're not gaining any ground on solving 40. Um, the number is not going to change on 40B. So, you don't want to get you don't want to make it too attractive. Need to You're going to have to give me a minute. Yeah. Yeah. So, so I think I think we're in it. It just I don't think it's going to be a long thing. Can everybody put put themselves on mute? Can you make me call Rich?

No. But now we can turn Then you go forget it and you give in. It's like to hear what they're saying and then I'll get Yeah. Could everybody just put themselves on mute if you're not already on mute? Perfect. Okay. Go ahead, Rich.

So, I I guess I would say this. We're not trying to solve every problem in one swoop, right? So, what we're I get it. what we're trying to you know what we are seeing and you know that's that's fine if people if they wanna if they don't want to make some adjustments here to try to incentivize people to come through as an open space development we can we could not change this but at the same time when the development comes in that's 40B that overrides our local zoning which has higher density it's going to have the homes are still going to be very high price because you got to offset that 25% affordability. You're not really achieving anything in that way either, right? So, we don't we don't provide the town nor the state provides financial incentives to really lower housing prices down, right? So, they they they essentially the program is based on private development, right? Trying to provide that affordable housing. So, if you increase the amount of affordability, then you're going to have to increase the price of the market rates to offset it, right? That's the I don't you know I'm not

suggesting that I'm trying we're trying to solve that. It's just that I think we're susceptible to to 40bs and 40bs in locations that we may not want to see them. And so and you know we're not in a power position to just say no to these developments that people they come in the office they don't like them that they they strip the site. Right. So, I mean, it's just, you know, I don't know. It's not a guarantee.

We've had a couple of targeted efforts in the last three or four years to use zoning to the town's advantage or put put the town more advantage when dealing with 40B. And we we've done that through our unique application of the MBTA Communities Act and uh extending that and some other things. So Rich, this is just another piece of of that ongoing puzzle. This is just another thing that allows us to regain or at least keep zoning control as opposed to it going into 40B. Is is that the primary goal with this?

That is the primary goal. And and hate to belabor the Cranberry Heights point. This property was chapter land. The town passed on it. Yeah. two times, maybe third, I think, not to purchase it and put it in permanently protected. So, we passed on it twice and only passed on just the water part, you know, like the part we were thinking about water tower for. Yeah. Yeah. U for the record, Dan Seager uh has joined. Hello, Dan. Sorry to be late. No worries. Um, any other comments right now from the board?

Um, I I would ask again, but I always seem to forget. Uh, so you don't have to remind me if it's obvious to everybody else where we're only at about 5% of the 10% required for 40B or even less. And the whole situation on the far end of the town uh, in the Pondville area, even if that all went through, does that resolve? How close does any everything that's pending? If it went through for 40B, are we at 10%. No,

no, we're not. Because again, when it when it comes to 40B, unless it's going to be rental and you count all the units, you're just continuously going to chase and not get any closer. So this zoning here is about is more about those the single family neighborhoods that are coming that are being you know looked at for 40B development. I mean it's it's you know

I mean I appreciate the work done here. Um I just I think we need to do something creative. I'm just not sure that this is this is the solution. Creating our own town version of of 40B essentially. Have any other towns? Go ahead, K.

No, I was just going to ask Rich. Have any other towns followed this path to try and solve their problem? I can't necessarily think of any off the top of my head, but um I mean it's a dollars and cents, so I don't know. I mean, I don't know what the you know, I I actually don't view this as a as a 40b replacement, and I I don't view this in the context of trying to solve affordable housing. I I kind of view it the way that I think Rich has described it where where this is a this is a hedge against or this is a this is a barrier or a moat

or at least a leverage chip, right, in in the in the game of zoning poker that that we can use to our advantage. The the only reason I I I even brought up questions in the first place was because I I like the idea, but I don't want the numbers at least from the percentage of um uh the you know um the you know the space granted to the developer uh for for uh for lot density whether that's 20% 30% 40%. I don't want those to be arbitrary. I I would like those to be pinned to something that we can talk about and actually agree on. And that's probably the toughest thing. Like that's of all the things we can go through in this, that's probably the toughest piece, but that's the that's the part that would make me feel most comfortable or at least being willing to advocate for it because Rich, to your prior point, I think we can illustrate the potential benefits for this. I do hear what Melissa is saying and I do wish there was some way to work in not losing out on affordable components, you know, which is a bigger problem for us to solve in town anyway. But for this, I mean, I I've seen the conservation um stuff work um or the open not the conservation, the open space preservation. Um, so I think that's a positive if not imperfect. This continues would probably be in reality imperfect as well. But at least what you're saying and and I do trust you on this. We could it's it's a fairly decent leverage that we can use to sway developers away from 40b.

Yeah. Yeah, because if just if we go back a little bit um before the inclusionary bylaw was changed through the citizen petition, we were at we're at 10, you know, it was 10% inclusionary and we still receive um 40b applications. when it went um when it went to the 20% it was like it was like a no there was no fiscal advantage to going through an open space subdivision do 20% affordable under those densities so it became infeasible um this is to kind of moderate it out to provide some affordable house, you know, still going to be still has to meet the inclusionary, but incentivize going a different path. We don't it's we could certainly evaluate other options, but I don't know what necessarily what other options would be without injecting something to change the costs for this for development, right? To not to incentivize to not go that direction.

There is sort there is an incentive though financially, right? Because if if there is a potential so the land, think of this from a developer standpoint. Say you buy one lot of land for 300,000. If you can get three houses on that lot, you know, and they happen to be a little bit smaller than what you would build normal if it was just one, you know, one monstrosity of a house, which is what we see often. Um, then, you know, they are actually getting I mean, it's basically three lots and then you can you can you could potentially sell a house for less. I don't know that anybody's really looking at it that way except, you know, one legislator right now. Um, but it's just like that the land cost is really that's that's huge if you can subdivide that by even more. Um, but I know that the typical way that they're going to think is, you know, like a business person like we're going to make as much money as we possibly can. I'm just wondering if there's a way that we can get kind of more like not not 40 y with you know what what um they're doing at the state and I know it's not passed right now cuz that's like you know four houses on one acre and you don't have a you have barely any land but like some cross between what they're doing at that level and and what you're proposing here. If we could do something like that where it's, you know, incentivizing to build houses that are not 5,000 square feet so that people that live in town can, you know, downsize and not be in a condo with an $800 a month HOA or, you know, or somebody's children can then buy a smaller house in town as a starter home. I feel like that's more what I would like to align it with if the financials work out with a developer, which I think is what Paul Feny, the state senator, is working on right now to see if that, you know, how much they need to incentivize them to do this. But I think even just subdividing the land is a huge savings for them right there with being able to have more houses on the lots. doesn't

necessarily like is there a way that we can try to work towards something that's missing in our town versus just more 5,000 foot homes.

So this isn't so this isn't the whole picture, right? So what you're talking about is particularly around the 40y that's something that we're going to be pursuing as well to make in certain areas. The areas that are really vulnerable to the development that we're talking about are not as highly suitable for 40y that we are going to go we will be looking at 40y um as an option. The other thing about 40 Y is it limits the size, right? So you're you're you're getting four units per acre, but the house size is limited. So I to I completely understand that. Um not sure every part of Norfolk. We want to have a 40 wide necessarily, right? So there's

I mean it would be zones like anything else, right? But I'm just thinking that's at some point going to be coming down the pike, too. just like, you know, the state apparently likes to do our zoning for us now. So, that's going to be coming next. So, we're we're working on something now when then that's going to be, you know, yet another zoning project for different parts of town. And then before you know it, there's so much density and, you know, people are already concerned about the number of children in the school and the $40 million to expand the school and, you know, there's all the additional costs. Um, I'm just concerned that, you know, between MBTA, 40B, then 40 Y and then we're trying to create more density on our own, it could just become the perfect storm.

Definitely always also be beneficial. Um, but yeah, that's stuff.

But I will say this, right? So developers don't develop unless there's a willing property owner to sell them the piece of property. So when you kind of work backwards, there are people who either have property as their property rich cash poor, right? So they try to maximize their 401k, their retirement plan, their investments are in land. So those are the folks that, you know, I I get what you're saying, right? But they're going to they want to maximize it. And we collectively the town doesn't want to see that happen. So is the town willing to say, "Okay, look, we'll go to X, Y, and Z. We'll buy it from you. So you're not going to sell it to the developer to overall reduce the density, but we're not going to overregulate you. So you you'll have no value left out of your land, right? That balance, that's that's kind of what we need to be thinking about." And I I completely un understand.

Yes. I'm sort of a visual person and sometimes I feel like it's it's easier to see things, right? It would it be okay if you pulled up uh GIS and kind of looked at the R1, R2, and R3 and kind of talked through what possible densities in some of these tracts of one available areas would look like, but two like maybe a possible scenario like if these lots were combined from an acreage perspective, they could have x number of lots on the property.

Yeah, sure. Let's see. because honestly like without doing the math it's hard to identify how many properties we're really talking about in some of these areas. Um, additionally, a lot of these areas that we're targeting are on kind of like the fringes from larger size lots and you know, um, the zoning there from a pricing perspective of building a net new house on those lots doesn't make a lot of sense for one single property. And so these subdivisions in my mind makes a lot more sense. It it does allow for houses that are more similarly sized from a you know firsttime house buying perspective in my mind.

So meaning do you think this would promote that Chris? I do. I Yeah, I think um I was I was hoping that until I looked at Weights Crossing and then I realized that those are 15,000 square foot lots, you know. I was I was really hoping to find the same thing. I'm just I just couldn't find any. I thought the Cranberry Heights example you gave was good going from 20 to 28.

Yeah, 20 to 28. No, I don't know what you know again you know Abbyville the development over here that Abbyville I mean that became a reduction from you know listen it went through stages where it was 200 units or more and then it came down to the end but um the point is though so if we use so you see Abby um actually sorry wrong spot wrong part of So, here's Abbyville right here. You could never build that on the subdivision regulations. 500 ft is the maximum. So that entire so that's one of the depends how you look at it. You could say all right 500 ft and land of a dead end street. So that prevents development in one sense but in the other it kind of spurs these types of developments where people try to circumvent the local regulations and the bylaws. Cranberry Heights is it's right here. Cranberry Heights would be there's no active plan, but at one point it was going to it was going to continue down same developer owns the parcel over and rent them. So I think it was going to be a bigger development, right?

Cranberry Height, I believe, was what did it go from 21 to 51 units, Rich? Was that the run? That was the one, right? Yes. But there's also development proposed for the part over on the rental line. Not not not that it affects Norfolk specifically, just a scope of potential project like that that land is all sold as well, right? And then the one we I was just talking about earlier was Palmetto, which is here, right? Which is sandwiched between the R3 here and then the R2. That's the one where the current 40B proposal is like 15,000 units. Yeah.

Yeah. 84 units. So similarly again left of a dead end street you know kind of truncates any development in terms of being under the bylaw. So that's but then you know then you know this you know view and so Rich also thinking about this from the perspective of the the submitter right the contractor who's looking to apply for the 40B um

is it more hurdles for them to go the 40B route versus if the town has something that would be um more amendable to what they're trying to achieve in the first place. Which path is easier? Working with the town or working with the state on getting the application, submitting it to the town, all of that? Like what's the path of lease resistance if we did have a vehicle like this in place?

I would say it's it's easier preferable for a developer who doesn't do 40B. Like you got to be a a developer who probably did smaller subdivisions in town, not just ours, but other towns. They don't do 40Bs necessarily. So it's a whole different permitting ma matrix with it. Um the the permitting itself to get approval through mass housing some the auditing post there's a lot more over there's a lot more red tape if you will going through the through the 40b. So some developers would just choose not to go 40B because it's just it's much more complicated um to do that and then those are then they end up partner with people who do 40Bs, right? So some of the developers who might be in the area doing smaller projects again they're not they're not choosing um to develop under the bylaw. So then the balance that we are looking for is trying to identify how do we get somewhat close to an allowance of a 40B from the perspective of you know density without getting there 100%. Um, but by making this an attractive way, and then this is circling back to Gary's previous point, this becomes our vehicle of enticing developers to work directly with the town, work within our existing bylaws, and provide something that's going to be beneficial for them, but also allow us to not have to go through that 40B route. Is that a fair statement?

Yeah, it is a fair statement. and the the pieces that were developable, that were easy to develop, um, you know, those aren't around as much anymore. So, they're more, you know,

so really, we would be looking at, you know, several homes of on on substantial lots consolidating over time in order to be able to do a substantial subdivision. Yeah, it' be a old we can't even um you can't even get to the creative point with the under the present, you know, with the zoning that's in place in terms of coupled with the regulations, right? So, I just talked about those lengths of dead end street. So then this kind of like is reminiscent of what we did with the MBTA bylaw from the perspective of applying it to locations where there is already homes, there are already businesses and it's it's not going to take an immediate effect. Not necessarily from the perspective of us kicking the can down the road and making this another planning board's problem in the future, but from the perspective of understanding that a lot of things need to align in order for somebody to take advantage of these things. Is that fair? Yeah, they do have. Yes.

Okay. And so like aside from those two locations that you pointed out, there really isn't other locations where this would be an immediate concern.

Um I can let me go over here. I'll show you what we just talked about. Um, so this piece here is the property that came before the town which the affordable housing trust is in the process of purchasing under right of first refusal. It's just look at the property card just to check real quick. 13 acres. This one here is one that came right in and pretty were clear right up front when they submitted a letter to the town looking at it for potential 40B development. Why would they do that? Because again under the un if you come in under the zoning bylaws then our wetland protection bylaw that we have in place they have to you know it's

right they have to adhere to it as opposed to you know they go out the other door if they go under the 40B and now you can go right up to wetland there is no no build. So then like let's let's do a quick math um exercise on this. Like what zone is this? What would they be allowed to build if all of those acreages are buildable? No b no no uh wetlands, no concerns with, you know, protective species or anything in that space and it was a perfect build. What's the the best case scenario from a density perspective for this lot?

The one I just showed you. Uh boy, it's a it's a pretty challenged question for me here just to kind of I'm putting you on the spot. I know. But I I think it's important for us to just get that visual. Yeah. I don't know what don't know what it could end up being under 40b. This one here,

not 40b under the proposed open space. So this one here maybe I would say you probably maybe five lots somewhere in that way. Not much more than that cuz the wetlands are back in here. Maybe more than five, maybe seven. Okay. And that's that's under what we're proposing, right? Yeah. Under what we're proposing with the additional density based on the the the zone that it's in and everything, right? Yeah. Because the thing is if you in this back area there's wetlands. So to be able to kind of loop pretend like the wetlands aren't there.

H you know so if the wetland's not there it's R forget it's R three. So R3 was what? A 40% additional density. 40% additional. So under R3 it's um you know 55,000 square feet. I don't know maybe maybe 10 lots. Okay, 10 lots max versus if we tried to do it now if they tried we probably get what five four probably I would say maybe I do have the benefit let's pretend that it's perkable right so it's

yeah I would say probably in the order of five would be fair okay so not that much more than what we would expect. But if it was 40B, we could look at probably three to four times that, right? Yeah. And I don't know what they, you know, on this example we're talking about single family. Um, on this particular property, they may they may try to, uh, you know, consider rental there, too, because it's on, uh, Pine Street on that one there. But

so then that does it in my mind it makes it a little bit more attractive for that type of developer that you were talking about that doesn't have that experience with 4B, doesn't have that great legal team to go through the process of the additional permitting and additional oversight um and just wants to do a quick subdivision, right? Like it sounds like that would entice someone into that. Um it would give them larger density, it would give them more units to be able to sell. Um, if that was me, if I was in that position, that would be the route that I would go. I'm not currently a developer, so I can't speak to the the mechanics of it, but it feels to me like it sounds like it makes sense. I'm curious like now that we've kind of gone through this exercise, um, anybody on the board feel similarly or have additional questions? I'm I I guess I'm just still kind of struggling to understand what sort of objective we're accomplishing with this other than potentially trying to deter some 40b projects which you know I'm all for gaining more control over development and you know being able to reign some of those projects in but this you know Chris you made the comparison to the MBTA communities I mean when we did that those were pretty discreet parcels and we kind of knew what the impacts and potential side impacts were to doing that. I mean, for this, we're talking like massive swasts of of town. And I feel like I don't right now have a handle of what could be the unintended consequences, you know, of doing this beyond just stopping a couple 40 B projects, maybe if they go, you know, if if they go the other other way. And just from a like a general, you know, policy perspective, I just I I'm I'm really having a hard time wrapping my head around allowing density across to

increase across like 40 to 60% of the town, you know, all in this one exercise. All to potentially deter 140B project that we know is coming in the next six months. Yeah, I hear you. And I

I'm not necessarily looking as one project that we're trying to deter, but I understand the the point. Um the the other option that we that we looked at which has ramifications as well. So for instance, um let's say you're down zone, right? So what is essentially R3? You make it R2. So now it's 43,000 560 square ft. And then you reduce the required frontage. I mean you you could certainly you know there's there could be that approach as well. Um, so there's there's other ways that you could you also could increase the length of a dead end street potentially a combination of that maybe that would kind of change the dynamic. Um, I think if the old if there's interest in, which I hope in some ways there is, is to try to change the dynamic when it comes to single family construction in these in the lower density districts, there might be another way that we could achieve this, too. But I I definitely can tell you that when you got 200 feet of frontage and the length of dead end streets, five is is 500 feet, you know, do the math. It's not you don't get that. you can't go in very far, right?

Yeah. So, I think Dan, what I was going to say, um, to your point is I think we're trying to control how quickly that density is increased and where that density exists, right? Like, so a lot of the R3 is around the peripheral of the tone, right? Um, so that would be like where we would target having more of that density, right? Um, and it would we would try and have it mimic what's on the other side of the boundaries. I think that's the the intent here. Um, R2 tends to be a little bit more central except for the top left portion um of the board. And then the R1 is kind of in the in the center, right? Um, a lot of the town was built with like these, you know, single acre lots with these expansive driveways and everything. And we're seeing a trend of people wanting to have less to maintain. Um, which is why a lot of things like these multif family houses and these smaller starter homes on these smaller tracks of lands are being more popular. And so the vehicle to get those into a town like ours is really only the 40B. Um, so if we provide something that's like a middle ground and graduates it for the town, then it allows us to try and control some of that density and control where it ends up going. And so this is just a way of us trying to do that. If we don't like the percentages, we can play with that. You know, that's that's the purpose of tonight's meeting, right? Like if we think 40%'s too much for an R3, let's change it. Let's go down to 30 and and bring the other numbers down. Um,

whatever makes most sense. But I think that's Or go ahead, Muslim.

Sorry, Dan. Um, I was gonna say I just think like we could play with the numbers all night, but if we don't know that that's actually going to work with, you know, at the end of the day, we all know what it comes down to. Just like with when we did the tiered, went from the tiered to the straight 10% affordable. If you're a developer, you're going to look at the bottom line. You're looking at financials. This is all financially driven. And Rich makes a good point, too. So if you're not, you know, 40B savvy, then, you know, obviously that's not your route. Just like residential developers oftentimes don't do commercial and vice versa. But I think it's um we don't know what numbers are going to work because we don't have we don't have any research to tell us that. We have anecdotal information, which is which is a good start, but

that's what we had when we were doing the changes in the B1 as well, right? We had anecdotal conversation with developers who said those affordability numbers will never work. you're never going to get anybody in there. We still don't have anybody in here. We've gone back to change those numbers now as a result of not having anyone in there for a couple years. Um reached out to developers to ask about these things. The only risk that we have right now is not doing anything, right? That's almost as bad as us

doing something. If we do something, then we're positively moving a step forward into a direction that we may feel comfortable with. I'm not saying that we do, but it allows us an opportunity to test the waters. And if we have to make a future change, that's the whole purpose of the board. That's why we meet on a monthly basis, sometimes twice a month,

right? But making decisions based on data, I think, is what people would probably expect. That's what I would like to do. Um, but I think if we don't have that, and I mean, obviously the market conditions changed from when the developers were part of the conversation in uh I think it was 2021, 2020, right? Um, but you know, obviously the market's changed, but like that's kind of my point though is that there was that huge effort to go through all the zoning changes, get it passed at town meeting, and now at right after this conversation, we're going to talk about redoing that zoning that didn't work. And so I'd rather just try to get it right the first time and bring it to town meeting one time because I can't think of about this as somebody who's not one of us that's on the board and constantly trying to think how do we avoid huge density and being out of our control. If you go to town meeting if any of us stand up there at town meeting and say you know we're thinking 40% density bonuses like how do you that's not going to go over well especially not without data. I hear you. And I think the problem is is that we're not going to find that data anywhere, right? Like,

no, we can absolutely find it. You find it from developers. They will absolutely have that information. That's how they make decisions on their projects. They're not going to make the decision on the project until they have the tract of land in mind that they're going to try and spec out, right? Like, so we're ask it's just a spreadsheet. It's just a spreadsheet. It's not that complicated. It's, you know, you compare one if 25 units versus 25 units with, you know, these benefits versus those benefits. It's it's yes, they're not going to move forward on a project until they have a parcel of land, but these are like pretty basic cost spreadsheets from a from a So, then Rich, how many developers do you know of that would go and do this exercise for us?

I don't know off the top of my head. I mean, how about any of the ones that own property in the town and would like to build something? Okay. Well, I I can re reach out to them and see. So, let's put a timeline on this. Um, when's our next meeting on this topic? Next couple weeks, isn't it? Well, so do we have to close this tonight? vote on it.

Um, you don't necessarily you don't have to close on it tonight. You could continue it to the um, April 14th meeting. Should we hear if the public has any comments on this first? Sure, that makes sense. Uh, Chris, do you want to take the helm or do you want me to keep driving? Um, you can keep going. I don't see anybody on line with a hands up or anything.

All right. Yeah. So, we'll just open it up real quick if anybody wants to um comment on this specific issue concerning the open space preservation. Uh, Mr. McCabe, go ahead. Mr. McCabe, I think uh you're on mute or we can't hear you at least. It's actually

just took me It's Karen McCabe and I was um I appreciate Melissa what you're saying because I am that person that's like show I I actually already called Rich to get some more information about it. Um, when Rich I want to say Rich says Abbyville, that's now what Weights Crossing and some of the numbers were originally from the original huge weight uh Abbyville and why they changed it to Weights Crossing and yes, we deal with the debacle of Weights Crossing daily at my house and um and would be impacted by that Cranberry Meadows. So I do want numbers cuz I want to know what's best not only for the town but the residents that already are dealing with Delaso's Delastoid's debacle with Weights Crossing, you know, and I I would think he would be the number one developer to go ask because he's put us into this situation and he walks on water on this town according to like he's a very good developer to work with. So that's been the tout of this Wes Crossing Abbyville for the last 12 years that we've been going through it. So I think the number one developer you should go to is um Mr. Deposit cuz he he is was always say whenever we need anything from this town, we go to him. So, that's my recommendation and I do appreciate this board making sure that we think through this thoroughly and just not make a decision because I do think that you're making sure that you're keeping the town and the residents in in thought for just not making up numbers. So, I want to thank you guys for doing that.

Appreciate the comment. Thank you. cuz we've been living it over on this side of the town with Dep Placido for for 12 years and it's 12 years of constant always trying to go through a back door. So, I appreciate really putting thought into it cuz Cranberry Heights is another one that they try to come in a back door. So, I appreciate it. We don't like any of it and we but we do understand it's part of life. You don't like everything. So, thank you so much Thank you. Anybody else from the public not on the board have comments, questions, concerns? Feel free to raise your hand or at this point there's not many people on so just speak out loud. Not seeing anything.

No, I'm not seeing anything either, Gary. Okay. Uh so what are next steps? We want to uh extend the hearing until the next next meeting. Yeah, that would be u I think a good recommendation because I don't think if you voted tonight there would be a favorable vote. I could be mistaken, but uh it's good to get some time with it, you know, and and do um I'm going to do my research. I know Melissa's going to do research. I'm sure everybody else can do some level of research on this. So, yeah.

Yeah. But Rich, I do I appreciate you coming. I know 40B is a big challenge for us in town and I appreciate you putting this together. I I know I sound like negative Nelly today, so I apologize, but I will think about it more, do some research, and be prepared when we talk next. So, I would um Yeah. Let's see. Betsy, you know, have our uh It's a pretty packed Yeah. So, um I've got several public hearings already scheduled, so I'm probably gonna say eight, probably eight o'clock. At least eight o'clock. All right. Are we going to discuss the other um the other Oh, yeah. No, we are.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Um yeah, I guess it doesn't matter. We're going to go in person and hybrid. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Can't go the other way. So, yeah. So then ADA if somebody would make a motion to continue to April 14th at uh motion to extend hearing to April 14th meeting at 8 o'clock. Second second. You can't move it and second it. Chris, I thought Dan moved it. I did. Okay, he did. Gotcha.

We all moved it together. It's so big. We got to help each other with it. Uh, okay. Um, we have roll call vote. Uh, so Chris Manfort, hi. Melissa Mayo, hi Dan Seager. Daniel, I did. Sorry. Got like a helicopter fly over the house, which makes the rattle. Uh, I said I Gary Surl. Nine. Gary Sullivan votes I. Any opposed? None left. Great. Okay. Um, so moved or it's passed. Whatever.

Yeah. Continue. Yeah. So, we'll uh go to the B1 changes next. Okay. That would be article Oh, section Okay. Section 1310 article 9 B1 district changes. Yeah. the old article. Gotcha. Yeah. Again, so it's XX just hasn't been assigned a number. So,

so this is to see if the town in Norfol will vote to amend Norfick zoning bylaws article 9 B1 district town center and 310-4.2 schedule use regulations by deleting the following strike through language and then the following new language and bold print. Yeah. So, I did um so Melissa did send some comments earlier today and I don't know if you saw my email. Melissa, I think some of them um so we'll get to your comments in a minute. I should start from the beginning and then we can get into those different comments. So as you as you know um you know the board's been engaged with um MAPC to do financial feasibility analysis relative to the B1 zoning bylaw and we did change the bylaw back in 2021. Um there was some changes that were made from the previous version, but I think it's important like not all the recommendations that were enumerated in that 2021, excuse me, 2020 B1 study were done. Um, and there were a significant amount of things that were recommended to be changed and it really it got pretty weighty in terms of what those changes should be and what was manageable to bring forward. And some of those changes came forward in 21 and were adopted. And some of the same things were identified in 2000 are somewhat we're we're actually going to be talking about tonight um that were identified back in 2020. um as potential thing requirements that impacted financial feasibility

and that was precoid and then obviously co happened. So that's really changed the re the way we um purchase goods and so forth. So services have changed much differently over that time period as well. But um one of the one provision that's being proposed to be changed was the footprint size. I know that was you know Melissa I know was one of your comments. Um the footprint size is limiting in terms of what it is today. I should probably I should probably Let me do this. Let me share the screen the bit the sections as we talk through them. So um to 15,000 square feet. So the 15,000 square feet in one hand, you know, shrinks the footprint, which is fine, but then it comes up against trying to, you know, if somebody wants to do something that's maybe more linear, not vertically. So that bumped up with made some developments not as feasible. So that that was identified back then. Um, so proposing tonight to increase the footprint to 30,000 square ft removing the the exception of the grocery store. I think it's been pretty much founded that a grocery store in Norfick Center of that scale is just not feasible. It wasn't really feasible then, nor is it really feasible today from a market standpoint. So that's why that's

being proposed to be stricken. Um this was one of the ones that um came up quite a bit when we did the study in 2020. The idea of how many stories, remember we had two and a half stories and we went to three. Um but yet we're not changing the overall height. The height still remains the way it was before. Um by going up to four stories. Um by special permit, it creates some flexibility when somebody wants to do standalone residential from the ground up. So that really is more what that's geared towards versus just a vertical mixeduse building. Um and you Obviously you're you know aware of what PY is proposing in terms of town center. Um that's just one example of it. Um why we why we in this path of doing a special permit. It's to give the board the discretion to if it doesn't make sense you could you could deny it essentially. So they they wouldn't be able to get the four stories versus if you had it four stories by right, you couldn't deny it. Um so it creates a little more flexibility based on a project, based on design to give you the flexibility for that requirement. Similar with the density um as you know 16 units per acre was the underlying zoning that existed. It actually was pre-changes in 21 it was just 16 units period. It wasn't based on per acre. So it was just 16 units. Um

we changed it to be 16 units per acre. Presently in the mix in the MBTA it's 18 units per acre but someone in MBTA can go strictly residential not any mixed use. This is to the 20s to increase a little bit more of the density whereby some of you be doing a mixeduse development. Again, that's building in the special permit to give the board some discretion to be able to say no if they if this project doesn't make sense, but at the same time create some flexibility. the um down to and the bigger one I know this um is the definition for mix use vertical and then mix use where it's standalone residential with commercial on the same lot. Um there was a tremendous amount of discussion about back again back in 21 when that bylaw first came about not allowing any residential on the ground floor because it was significant concern about people just doing residential and not getting mixed use and so it was pretty restrictive. However, as it was defined that way, it really removed flexibility in terms of what somebody could do in a mixeduse situation whereby somebody wanted to put mixed use along the street front and have parking at grade and then go above it with with uh residential. You couldn't do that under the present bylaw. So instead of prescribing specific requirements, the special

permit option was chosen again to give flexibility for the developer property owner and then the planning board based on each project that comes before you to see if it makes sense. And we built in a concept plan provision. So somebody could come before the board, propose what they want to do, get the plan board's feedback, and then come back to permit the project. So you could have that discussion that created back and forth on a project to be able to create the design town center. Not all these pro one size doesn't fit all. We have a mix of sites that would be ground up from the ground and then we have sites that have commercial on them already where some property owners through the when we did the B1 study had expressed interest in doing mixed use. Um by giving special permit flexibility they have some options. So, for instance, um Dunkin Donuts, for example, they have the Dunkin Donuts. They've been wanting to try to do mixed use. There's been conversations with them um and more recently conversation with them about this zoning change which might work better to them in terms of development feasibility would be standalone residential next to Dunkin Donuts where it's a kind of combination not having commercial on the first floor and residential above it there there is a big limiter for them of course in relation to sewer but it created some flexibility. The same thing with um where the Norfolk cable is located now. You got the hardware store that was is vacant. Somebody might be

able to to do a mix use standalone building and take advantage of the commercial they already have. So this is kind of all built around not being too prescriptive to create flexibility for property owners, developers and the board to kind of come up with a development concept that gather consensus around. So that's what these proposed changes are trying to achieve. I'll pause there for board feedback in the public. I like it. Yeah.

Yeah. I I I like it too. I mean, I feel like it's well thought out and that it provides us, you know, flexibility within a certain extent um to accommodate, you know, projects that we may think are in the best interest of the the center of town. Um on just that we don't have to get into it now, but on the the height paragraph, I maybe want to take another look through um that. So that's what I'll segue.

Yeah. So Melissa had some comments she submitted earlier and which trying to finesse the language and make it a little bit smoother to read better. So um I can I can share that so we can take a look at it on screen. Um some of Let me just pull it up. Hold on a second. Share the screen now. Is it a minute? Is it showing? No, it's not showing. Hold on. Sorry. Me go back. Actually, Melissa had a lot of good comments. Some of them I think we might not be able to do now only because in terms of limitation of what um was advertised. Um, so I know Melissa had comments in terms of up in section 9.1, which is a good comment, but I don't know if um we can certainly try it. It might get stricken because we didn't advertise the change. If you see the Can you see on my screen the

Yep. Yeah. And I saw that it was uh Yeah. I was looking at the notice of hearing and um yeah, I noticed it wasn't on there. So, that's just um the old master plan is noted there. So, I just figured if we were going to go to town meeting with this particular section, I would just rather have it be completely accurate. Um but I also understand that limitation. So, in terms I was just thinking about that it doesn't where do you see the old master plan? You just know because it's older. It doesn't say

Yeah. When it says like the, you know, parts A and B of the master plan and the the categories are different. Economic development still there, still going strong, but like some of circulation isn't in there anymore. And um you know, it's just there's all different words. I don't It's just um Yeah, I just Yeah. Yeah. I just I just knew from working on it that it was probably referring to the 2007 one.

Yeah. Yeah, I gotcha. Um I think that one Yeah, points definitely taken. I mean, we could It wasn't advertised. I don't know. I mean I mean we could I guess you could do this if you wanted to change it. We could propose to change it. I know from we just heard from so for instance the when we got done doing the uh there was a lot of concern when we did the inclusionary bio last fall that the AG would you know strike the whole thing and generally speaking the AG doesn't strike entire bylaw they may strike provisions just wasn't advertised so I don't know how the rest of the board feels I mean we could always go back to it and fix it but

meaning it just it wasn't bolded it wasn't part of what we discussed the this is in particular was in the notice of hearing. It just wasn't bolded or stricken. No, it wasn't bolded or marked as to be deleted or added to. Whereas this one here Yeah, that's just changing the words around. I was trying to figure out Yeah. Yeah. Just trying to figure out how to Does that read better to the rest of the board members? I think it does read better. I mean, that was I guess Dan's comment already, right? Yeah, it looks good to me. Yeah.

And you already answered the part about the 50,000 square feet in the grocery store. I was just curious. Yeah, that was the So, I think that um this is highlighted here.

Oh, yeah. The 70. Okay. So tell me if you guys think of this the same way that I did because this wasn't one that was bolded either, but I was reading through everything just kind of skimming the paragraphs that you know leading up to and after the ones that were proposing updates in and that section there about 70% of the length of its pedest pedestrian level street side facade comprised of doorways which provide physical access, windows and other transparent elements of walls which provide visual access. So basically like what you would see at any you know street side commercial um or small business type of thing like in Rena Center. Um but I didn't because we're we want to propose separating the residential from the commercial on the same mixeduse project. I just wasn't sure if now that would create an issue for a residential builder that they have to create 70% um basically windows in the f on the first floor.

Well, that's why the special permit vehicles in there, we can decide to change that if we want to.

Um let's see. So within the business core, unless otherwise provided by special permit by the planning board, the frontage side of each building, 70% versus 30%. So we as a board can choose, hey, yeah, you know what? That makes a lot of sense. You're just doing a residential building. It's maybe at the end of this street where there's a lot of other businesses or something. It it makes sense, right? And then we can approve the special permit for that. Oh, gotcha. I see that now. So yeah, if it's a special permit and we have some flexibility there, then we don't have to address that.

Yeah. And in some instances, I don't think the 7030% is going to make sense from a egress perspective depending on how many people are going to be in the space. They might need additional exits. Um, they might need less. Um, I don't know what makes the most sense, but we'll figure it out. So, that one that one's a non-issue, Rich. Well, I will say just you're right. However, this was identified as something that should consider at some point to be readressed when the original study was done, but it's workable under its present form. I ran out of editing steam here, guys. So, help.

Yeah, when I said I just put a comment when I was I was like, "Need to restructure this sentence." But then I got busy and I never restructured it. The height of the building.

So basically it's except so this this was yours, right? Or no, that was the original. This is yours here, right? In the red. Yeah, I just moved the the order of it around. But see how it says except by special permit from the planning board and then comma maybe up to four stories. Does it seem like we need to add something else there? It should be like not to exceed four stories. That way we have a cap. Not to exceed. Yeah. And keep the order that Melissa proposed, right? Yes.

Except by special for the planning board not to exceed four stories. Period. That sounds good. Yep. Yeah, I think that's a good one. Wait, before you um move on, Rich, can you go back to that paragraph? And this just

likely just my own reading comprehension issues, but I'm sorry, I've got two dogs arguing behind me. Um we uh this next sentence that says uh but in no case shall the height exceed three stories as measured from the street facing finish grade of the building or structure within third story. Does that also have to be updated to say except for special permit or is there um a clever reason that that's not in there missing? Yeah, we could probably strike that. But in no case shall I see three stories because I feel like it's already addressed at the top.

Yeah. So you're talking this here. I can't but Yeah, let me look at that. Yeah. And just have a have a period after process like Melissa's. So Melissa, correct me, right? There's a period here, right? The process. Strike this out. Then it starts a new sentence. Correct. That was the change that I made.

The building shall not exceed three stories of Ben Street. Read the building or structure except by special permit from the planned board not to exceed four stories. Yeah, that makes sense. It seems to read better. Everybody here agree. You think? Does that address your question, Dan? Oh,

I was talking Sorry, I'm talking about a little bit further down like two sentences later where in such cases building height may be extended up to 46 feet to the peak of the roof for the purpose accommodating roof lines, but in no case shall the height exceed three stories as measured from the street facing finish grade of the building or structures including the third. Oh, so so that that's the outside district. That's the B1 outer. Okay. So, so just Oh, okay. All right. Limiting this to the core. And so, is it I I think we talked about this before. Is it is it is it correct to say that we're we're allowing a four story, but we're still staying within the same height requirements?

Yes. Got it. That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Good point. That was We're keeping the three store outside. You want to see the core? You want to see the map or I got it. I got it up next to me, Rich. I'm all set. Okay. Um, little word smithing here, too, right?

Yes. Yes. And then I had a question. Um, let's see. Or up to 20 units. Yes. And then following from the planning board. one, two, three lines down where it says in the B1 district outside the business core, residential densities for assisted living facilities shall not exceed a ratio of 16 units per acre um for any single lot except by special permit. Is that just the same thing? Like we could go up to 20 for that one or is that different? No, that one stays the same. So outside the core you could 16Z it for assisted living

but it says um except by special permit. Oh okay because it was the zoning board previously. Could they approve that previously? Uh it was the zoning board before. Yes. So this is just changing from the ZVA the planning board. Density is not changes just who permits it. Okay. Make does that make sense? I mean what you're reading in terms of

Oh yeah, it does. The way that it was written was fine. And I was just curious about the um assisted living facilities. It was like just very particular in the middle there. I wasn't sure if there was something I was missing, if we could still go up to 20, if it was 16. The special permit part is what kind of threw me off because it says 16 units per acre for any single lot except by special permit. Um I think that's the part that threw me off because I was curious what the special permit would be. What are we basing it on? What's our maximum? M but you're just saying that in general it would be a special permit for that particular use. Yes.

Okay. This one's pretty straightforward. Just keep it all within the per the planning board with that special permit. Sure. I I liked that change, Rich. I think that could be helpful for um the applicant submitting so they don't have to go to two different boards for, you know, just something that could be done by by one of us. Yeah. Make it simpler.

Yeah. I think you'll probably going to see more of that on the proposed going forward. I have other examples why I think it makes sense. I mean maybe at some point in time maybe it made sense but under present form it doesn't really work well going to two different boards. Ah so you had a question about this.

I have a question about that but it's not even like we're not talking about it. I was just curious where the random 19 came from but we don't have to address that. I can ask you offline. It's not even what we're talking about. The only thing is that it's annoying that one's typed out and the other one's not. That's a good point. We could change that. Yeah, that's a legacy from the existing. We didn't actually the No, just quick on that. It's a the if you go down to the if you see the minimum front yard setback, it's six feet.

Mhm. would match them up. Before it had minimum front yard of zero feet, the prior version of the B1, but then it had this build two line. So when we did this in 21, we at least Yes. didn't It wasn't numeric, but had them match up. Yeah. Now I can't unsee it all over the place. Like B 6 feet. All right. All right. We're going G. Solve the problem. He kept scrolling.

All right. So again, this is the whole kind of the I'll call it, if you will, the big meat of all the these proposed changes that give the board in concert with a developer, property owner a flexibility to kind of figure out a development plan that works. And then that's what 9.7 is all about. And then followed up by eight. So they can put a plan together, you can all evaluate it and hopefully make decisions that we can come to consensus on a plan. It works for every everybody. So that's and this is just literally just duplicating and putting in the use table so it's distinguishable that special permit these two. Yeah, my only question there was about the 65% because, you know, we've talked about that so many times where developers have said it's too strict if we have this 65% residential, 35% commercial, but it's but we didn't change anything about it. So, I'm curious if the other if Rich if the other changes we made help to to make that one less urgent because before that was kind of the number one piece of feedback that we got.

Yeah. So, it's really grounded right here in this line that's giving you the that's the you know, if you will the the separate building that's really that helps a lot. Okay.

Mix the buildings, mix the ratios and so forth. So we didn't again we didn't try to prescribe it. It's giving you the hopefully tell me agrees that could figure it out when the development comes in terms of what makes sense. What about in you know the across from Walgreens that lot over there if there was something you know if the the LLC that owns that land if they wanted to develop that and do mixed use in a single building that 6535 would still um be an issue.

No so this would be up here if it was in a single building. So this one's a single building. So mixed use with commercial and residential H. Okay. But then does that one contradict the one directly below it? No, cuz these are going to be separate.

So this is a little If you're talking about vertical, right, that's going to be over here under this use category. If you're separating out, then you're going to be well, now you'd be down to here. So, the example I gave earlier, you could be this one here where you could see your cursor. Can you see the my cursor? Yes. It's off to the left, but I can see it.

Okay. Under this one, the example I gave earlier where by let's say you put along the frontage commercial on Liberty Lane and then tucked behind it was parking at grade and then you built above it. You could do residential above it and you can kind of wrap the parking so you don't see it. That would be definitely this option. So you could have some you might not even have residential on the first floor but you might have a res residential amenities on the first floor. The other the definition was so restrictive that literally there was no resident. So if you had a a mail room, a you know a package area, vestivial gathering space, um that's you have a fitness thing, but let's say somebody had a meeting room for the residential, you couldn't do it under under the existing definition.

What's that? So if it's all in one building and it's still 6535, it's just they have different they have more flexibility as to how So we're not Yeah, we're not necessarily prescribing the ratio in a in a sustainable building. Isn't Isn't that what that says? Or am I which one go to sleep? This one here. So I can't see. Um let's see. one. Two. Right under your bolded one where it says the planning board may allow residential use on the ground floor. Right under that one. Isn't that the one that was really the issue? I

if they're both in the same building, right? They were this one was significant issues. If you want to separate them out, like you want to have an example like I mentioned where you wanted to have a standalone residential ground up separate from the commercial. Oh, right. So, I know that that was an issue. Is it still an issue with the 6535 in the same building? It doesn't necessarily have to be 6535 in the same building. Yeah. Isn't that what the one underneath it solves? It says it's a special permit. Doesn't that address that?

Well, I think that's my that's my question is it seems to contradict it to me. Like I just we've talked about the 6535 so much that I was just surprised that we didn't address anything there, but it's also late. Maybe I'm tired, but I'm just reading it again. Well, no, because this goes on to say in separate building. Sorry. Yeah, this this one on the bottom there in both. Yes, that's Mhm. That's the one that solves so to speak the ratio.

Yeah. Okay. So, it solves for it, but then the one above it says something that contradicts it. No, I know cuz we're not changing that one. This is the solve. We didn't we didn't redefine this at all. We created this provision here which is built in the flexibility for someone to propose a ratio for residential and commercial and then you as the board would either so this is an allowed by right table right so we're saying that the 6535 split is allowed by right in this district by right if you want to mix the if you want to mix the ratios which is above here you got to come down to the special permit

special permit thank you Yes. Now that now it clicked. It took me a moment to get there, too. No worries. All right. Sorry about that. I think you were saying the same thing all along. Um, just hearing it from another voice made it click. Thanks, Chris. No problem. It's been a week. It's only Wednesday, right? Yeah, it's only Doesn't feel like it's only Wednesday. Yeah. So does that. Well, that's it. All right. I don't have any other comments on it. I think this is pretty well polished. Anybody else on the board?

Okay. Opening it up to anybody in the audience.

Seeing none. Um then you want us to uh motion to approve this for the tenwart? Yeah, with the proposed language changes. So looking for a motion to approve this or this has to go to select board first, right? No, it's all done. It's uh this is going to go to advisory next. Yeah. Okay. Um can you scroll to the top so I can see? Yeah. All right. So, we come down. This we can't really do anything about this one. You've

reddrafted. If you just give me the title back. Oh, sorry. No worries. All right. Uh so looking for a motion to approve um the article 9 B1 district town center amendments as proposed um for the town warrant for our town meeting on May 13th. May 13th. And you're going to amend it though? You're going to make as amended by the comments provided. So moved. I have a second. Second.

All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Miss Mayo, hi. Mr. Sullivan, hi. Mr. Cheryl, hi. Mr. Seager, if you're with us, hi. Thank you. What if he was against us? Um, and chair Montford votes I. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion's passed. Did you get all that, Batsy? I did, but you didn't include the um schedule of use. Oh, okay. So, maybe in second. Can you make a second motion?

Looking for a motion to approve the schedule of use for the article 9 amendments as discussed and with amendments proposed. So, move a second. Second. Second. Roll call vote. Mr. Surl. I Mr. Sullivan. Hi. Mr. Sager. Hi, Miss Mayo. I and the chair Montford votes I. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. What's next, Rich? Med branch. All right. Bring us up to speed. Okay. So, let me go into uh this is our shared use path. Yes. Let me uh Hold on a second. All right. While you do that, can we take a quick Oh, Dan's gone. Never mind. Dan, you want to do the meeting minutes real quick? Um, yes. Sorry. Just 3:106.

Wrapping up bedtime. Um, all right. I think the meeting minutes for March 10th, 2026 were sent out. Any questions, comments, concerns? No. All right. Uh, take a motion to approve the meeting minutes. So move. Second. Second. Uh, okay. Roll call vote in favor for opposition the meeting minutes. U Melissa, I. Gary Surl, I. Gary Sullivan, I. Chris Mort. I Dan Seager votes I. Thank you. All right, Rich.

All right, so I'll try to make this pretty quick. Uh, as you hopefully all know, if not, we were awarded phase one for the Med Medway branch shared use path, which goes from Barnstable Road to Tucker Road.

We through the complete streets program, which is in total $499,000. Um, I do have the award letter. I think I sent it to you before. Um, we're still waiting to hear on phase two, which is Tucker Road to Boardman Street. At the same time, I did apply to uh, and if you see share screen, it says Mass Trails budget and timeline spreadsheet. I applied to Mass Trails for design money. It has a a match component. Um so the you did agree to match um it's actually the total engineering design and construction observation budget is 165,000. The grant request is for 100,000. um based on the timeline through the complete streets what's what needs to be our phase one needs to be wrapped up by December of 2027 what I'm proposing is that the match was coming from the off-site mitigation which would cover the survey cost for phase one and two is that we proceed with the survey And the reason why I'm proposing that, I'm going to show you in a second, is um well, essentially it's the we know that there will be and we need to identify Medway branch is the former

Medway Branch Railroad right away, which is 60 ft wide, which is pretty wide. So, I think there's probably some people that would be surprised once we go out, survey, and stake the boundaries of the rightway. Um, but having said that, we want to be able to look at the existing grade. As you know, there is a hill going along the side where the senior center is located. It'd be nice to get the survey done now so we can start to look at what impacts might be or not might not be in terms of phase one whereby we may I don't know if we will need to but we might need to go to town meeting in the fall for some construction temporary easements on on the private property. I don't know if that's the case yet, but the idea would be to get the survey underway so we can kind of take a look at and be better prepared to know whether we need to do that or not. So we kind of keep the timeline going in terms of the overall project. So I'll stop sharing for a moment. So we have to have a survey done.

Yeah.

To do the design. We already have the grant and by doing actually that survey is the survey estimate. It's actually a little bit lower than that 30,000. It's 23,000. So the survey is going to be a little bit less for the entire roadway. So going from Bar all the way to Borman Street. So we do it in one shot, not double mobilization, etc. It's quiet out there. Yeah. need. So, I need your blessing if you don't. That's that's why I'm asking you cuz it's your money. Well, it's not your money, but it's money under your under your control in terms of appropriations to be spent on it. So,

I mean, it makes sense to me. Just to be clear, so this is the money for the survey work that you're that's what you're asking for? Yeah, for the survey work. Yeah. Yeah. Makes sense to me. And you said you applied separately for design funds for yes to mass trails. And I missed the little part you mentioned that it's you're getting 100 but it's comes to 165. Well, there's a matching component. So, okay. So, we put a You got enough money?

Yeah. We We do have enough money with the grant. We wouldn't have enough money to do the whole thing without the grant though. Yeah, I think that was approximately what we agreed before to pay if there right. We said like we would love obviously to get a grant and to get it paid for, but if there's a match component, I'm pretty sure this is around what we had said we were okay with a couple months ago

approximately. I think you might have went so far as $66,000 maybe somewhere in there, but that was for everything on phase one. This is 75 for the whole entire thing, which is um this grant request. So, we got half a million the other um I don't know. I'm trying to think what we put in for I think it was a million dollars, actually. Let me see. because I so just in terms of where we are if you remember so last year when I asked you for this and we submitted for the mass for complete streets they had the cap of 500,000 so that's why we had to put a project within that construction budget in terms of the construction money side of it they since have changed Now going forward when we applied in January it they've raised the cap. So that's why we're we went in for the complete to do the whole project all the way to Boardman Street. No concerns on my side. Anyone on the uh audience? Any questions? Okay. Anything else from the board?

All right. So, I'm looking for a motion to move forward with the Medway branch shared use path survey survey. Second. We have a second. Roll call vote. Melissa Mayo I Jerry Surl Ian Seager I Gary Sullivan I Chris Mford I vote I motion's moved any unanticipated business Rich no there isn't all right so uh it's been fun thank you for your time appreciate you all looking for a motion to adjurnn So moved. Do

I have a second? Second. All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Mr. Sullivan, hi. Mr. Seager, I s I miss Mayo. I All right, the chair for votes I. Thank you everyone. Have a great night. Take care. You Thank you.