Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norton tables proposed multifamily zoning overlay after hours-long debate over state mandate and local control
Summary
After extended debate about an overlay district designed to meet a state multifamily-by-right mandate, Norton town meeting tabled both a resident amendment and the main zoning article; speakers split over compliance risks, school and traffic impacts, and litigation concerns.
A proposed zoning overlay intended to meet a state multifamily-housing mandate dominated the Oct. 21 Norton town meeting for hours before members voted to table both a citizen amendment and the main article.
Tim Griffin, chair of the planning board, told the meeting the proposal was submitted to satisfy state EOHLC (formerly DHCD) guidance for MBTA-affected communities and to avoid penalties and reduced eligibility for discretionary state grants. Griffin said the state requires 50 buildable acres (net of wetlands and other exclusions) with by-right multifamily capacity at a minimum of 15 units per acre; he warned the town risks losing grant eligibility if it fails to adopt compliant zoning.
A resident amendment offered by Jim Shabot sought to narrow the bylaw: renaming the district, removing discretionary density bonuses, limiting building heights (favoring three stories), and raising minimum lot sizes and frontage requirements to reduce small-scale, high-density infill. Shabot argued his version would “meet them exactly where they’re asking us to meet” while better protecting local character.
Across a lengthy public discussion, opponents argued the statewide program imposes burdensome requirements and raised concerns about school capacity, traffic, infrastructure and the town’s ability to litigate should the matter be challenged. Supporters said failing to adopt compliant zoning could make the town ineligible for infrastructure and housing grants and limit local control later in the process. Town Council counsel clarified that EOHLC makes final determinations of compliance and that defeated zoning articles are subject to a two-year resubmission rule unless they were recommended by the planning board under specific conditions.
Procedural result: After debate the Shabot amendment was moved, discussed, and then tabled by a vote; the main Article 16 was likewise tabled by majority vote, halting immediate action. The planning board and select board were urged by multiple speakers to continue public engagement and consider a revised approach before any future vote.
Next steps: With Article 16 tabled, the planning board may revisit language and map options in public sessions; EOHLC compliance review happens after town meeting votes, and any future article would be subject to the state’s compliance review and applicable resubmission rules.
