Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Greatwoods Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norton planning board transmits 'Greatwoods' overlay zoning to town warrant amid debate over state housing mandate
Summary
The planning board voted to submit a draft 'Greatwoods' overlay district to the regular town meeting warrant. The discussion covered district boundaries, setbacks, roof‑deck exemptions, density bonuses for mixed‑use and affordable units, parking/EV standards and local preference language; staff will refine the warrant language before the Sept. 10 public hearing.
Taylor Prz (planning staff) presented a revised draft overlay—branded in the discussion as the 'Greatwoods' overlay—intended to meet state housing requirements tied to MBTA‑adjacent/Section 3A guidance. The board reviewed multiple policy choices in draft language, including whether to include specific parcels (for example New England Ice Cream) in the district boundary, whether to impose a 50‑foot buffer/setback adjacent to existing residential uses, and whether to include an explicit roof‑deck exemption in the height table.
Taylor explained three options on several topics and requested directional feedback from the board. On district mapping staff asked whether to remove smaller parcels to reduce public resistance at town meeting; members were split but generally favored keeping the proposed boundary intact for continuity. On setbacks the board discussed three options; several members preferred leaving detailed setbacks for the upcoming recodification process rather than inserting new dimensional language now.
The board also discussed height and amenity incentives. Staff proposed density bonuses (for example one additional story for specified ground‑floor commercial or additional stories for affordable units) but clarified that no combination of bonuses should allow a building taller than five stories. Members agreed to retain a density bonus approach tied to commercial ground floor and affordability, with the clear caveat that heights must not exceed five stories.
On commercial uses and mixed‑use thresholds, members favored a simple rule to limit non‑residential occupation so that residential remained a principal component: a suggested approach was that commercial uses should not occupy more than 50% of total building floor area above the first floor (staff advised the first floor may be 100% commercial). Parking standards and EV charging requirements were reviewed (one EV charging station per 20 parking spaces rounded up) and were left in the draft, with a waiver process retained for applicants.
Several members voiced frustration with the state mandate but said they preferred to transmit a local approach that preserves as much local control as possible. The board voted to transmit the draft overlay bylaw as an article for the regular town meeting warrant so that refined language can be posted and the public hearing process continue. Staff said language may be tightened but plans will return to the board for the Sept. 10 public hearing to present final warrant language and public outreach materials.
What’s next: Planning staff will refine draft language with legal review, adjust any dates to match the town meeting warrant schedule, and present the updated article at the Sept. 10 public hearing.
