Master Plan Working Group - Regular Meeting

All [Music] right. So, let's call this meeting of the master plan working group to order at 1 minute past 7 on Monday, June 16, 2025. I'll begin with a roll call. Bob Carol. Yeah, Bob Carroll's here. Victoria Duckworth. Hi, babe. Lindseay Fox and Marie Foley here. Uh, could you maybe change your name from Fiona to Ann Marie? Okay. So, the other Fiona is Anmarie. Deborah George here. Brian Hull here. John Tel Kimble here. Essex Petri, David Robbins is here, Sue Robbins here, Colleen Roy, and I saw Lindsay Fox join. Lindsay, hi. Yes, here. Excellent. So, we at the moment we have nine of our 11 members present. That constitutes a quorum. So let us uh move forward into the business of the evening. The first discuss and discussion item being the public comment review of the draft plan and implementation matrix. So we've got we could we concluded officially concluded the public review public comment period uh last Thursday

at the end of the day. Um Sarah and company I presume have been have collected all those comments and I I now see in the comment matrix on the Dropbox a uh a new tab with public comments in it and uh I'm assuming that is I think I downloaded that earlier today presumably that is a complete list of everything that was received. Yes. And so, you know, yeah, let's let's start by sort of, you know, you explaining what we've got there and what what the working group is being asked to do with those comments. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Dave. Hi, everybody. Uh, I want to congratulate everybody on a very successful public comment period. Uh, I think Fiona and planning team went above and beyond to make this far-reaching, which is fantastic. We received 63 comments through the form and one over email. Uh so 64 public comments and then also in this specific tab public comments are committee comments that didn't make it before the last deadline. So it's comments that this committee hasn't seen yet and that is another 40 or so or another 60. So to make this go a little bit faster, we organized them by the type of comment and also gave some context through a CMRPC response. So we don't have to go through all 122 tonight. Uh we can of course, but some of them are just typos or text edits for clarity. So those and if you see if you have it open and I'll open it too when we go through it. In column D, greens are either typos or small changes, and those are I feel fine changing that without talking to the committee about it. Um, yellows are

things that I think could go either way that I'd love to get the committee's feedback on tonight. Um, so those are um requests for minor changes in narrative that might change or alter the action item a little bit that we had decided on or requests for additional content that's not in the master plan as it stands. And then reds are pretty major changes. Uh so request for major change in recommendation, request for kind of a shift in what we had decided the plan was going to say previously. So that gives you a sense of kind of the weight of each comment. And then in SERPC response, we also used a different color code with the same colors. That's what we're going to go through tonight. But greens are yes, we feel good changing that. That's like very similar to the greens in column D. small thanks. Yellows are let's talk about it tonight as a group and reds are, you know, CERPC recommends that nothing changes in the plan based on that comment. So, of course, that's up to the committee, but to kind of narrow them down for you. Um, we put some in red and I'm happy to go over the explanations for the red tonight if this committee would like. Um, most of them are, you know, because public comments are usually people who have no experience with the master plan or we're not here on this process. You know, there's just some miscommunications along the way is what most of the reds are. Um, so things that aren't usually put in a master plan or things that are kind of against the direction that we're going. So, what we could do today is start with the yellows or I'm also happy to go through all of them, some of them, or if everyone's familiar with the sheet, we can go with ones that you have questions on. I'm happy to take direction from the

committee, but and I can share my screen as well. Yeah, let me just note for the record that working group member Colleen Roy has joined us on Zoom. Welcome. Also, as a note of interest, if you will, um, counting the different types of comments, just those that were labeled typo and text edit for clarity together constitute 71 of the total comments, which is about 60% of the total. And those I think without exception those are the ones that are generally labeled most of them are green in the CMRPC response and and I I for for all those I think without let me just check my notes here real quick. I think without exception those where the CMRPC response was labeled green. I have no reason I saw no reason to talk about those tonight. So we can start with the yellows. I will share. Yeah, let let's do the yellows, Sarah. And then um Yeah. And then as we kind of go through, we'll probably be touching on the reds as well. So, good. Yeah. Um, okay. First yellow was a pretty minor change. We're talking about the introduction. There is, and this was on here twice, so you'll see it's also above and we just said we said this below. Um, and that's

so you could count how many changes are made. So if a like a typo or a suggestion was duplicated on this, the second one is in red or like no change just so you could see how many changes are happening to the final document. So there was a lot of overlap. We had Essi do a really great read of the typos and then some people caught them as well. So but this one is on Grafton being a member of the Central Massachusetts Regional Public Health Alliance. That was in the text and that is now to be disbanded. Um since two people said this and I've heard whisper that is correct I believe. Um so this recommendation is to take that specific name out of the introduction as an example of where Grafton does regionalization well and instead focus on emergency response and mutual aid. So um we tried to make it pretty straightforward so you could see if we approve it with changes what the change will exactly be. So this would be uh grafting routinely partners with neighboring municipalities to deliver low cost effective services. That's the same from the original draft including emergency response mutual aid and the capital improvement plan to address infrastructure facilities and service needs. Anybody object to the proposed change here? Hearing none. Keep going. Um, this one is in town services. There should be more sharets and open meetings on weekends for public projects so all voices can come together. There were a few comments like this on this specific section of how to engage the public in town services and quality of

life. Um, so you'll see a few very small changes that they're asking. So this one could be a sentence in action item 1.2.1 um saying the town could consider hosting events on the weekends to attract residents who work on weekdays. So this would be change to the narrative, not the action item title. Yeah, just full disclosure. So um this was a comment that came out of the library info session. Um so just uh I had um heard this anecdotally from a visitor to the to the table. I mean, you know, just in case the committee was wondering how this go up there. And to be clear, this is action item 1.2.1 2.1 in quality of life because that was the better place to put it. So that action item is increase the number of ask me anything sessions and continue supporting the municipal podcasts for residents to meet town employees and be introduced to town processes. Shel. Yeah. I just wonder if maybe we broaden it a I don't know if broaden is the right word, but um I think it would make sense to explore whether that would actually increase attendance or um I sorry I'm not verbalizing well at all tonight. Um, so I know it's come up um at town meeting a few at least once to change the town meeting night, but I don't know that any real surveying or um other actions been taken. Like no one's really gone out in any scientific

fashion to find out what the best method of communication is and whether weekends make a difference. Um, I don't I get maybe it doesn't matter because it just says consider hosting events on the weekends, but I didn't know if it um might make sense to include something more along the lines of um finding out from residents whether weekend um whether weekend meetings would actually increase attendance. Yeah. The other place this could work is the action item after this is assess public meeting processes to determine measures to increase accessibility. And this is a little more broader than that first action item and is kind of saying what what you're hinting at is like we don't really know sometimes what will work, right? So, including exploring, you know, meetings on week nights or something to that effect or weekends rather. Sue, your hand is up. Yeah, I just I agree with Shantel. I think it's easy just enough to put the town um should consider and explore just in that sentence instead of changing everything else. the town can consider and explore hosting events on weekends and I think that's pretty explanatory. Yeah, there's along those lines that's come up in a one or more conversations I've had recently and that is that in the master plan we are, you know, we've identified a need to increase and improve and enhance public participation and communication. But in

the master plan, we are we are not proposing we're not saying how we're going to do that. I mean, we've you know, we basically we've got some action items that are all about trying to accomplish this without knowing as of yet, without knowing how we're going to do it. And so we don't we we certainly don't need to you in the master plan we don't need to you convey the impression that yeah we know all the ways that we can do these things. So language language like this you know suggesting some options things that the town might you might want to do supports the b the main goal here and I think that's sufficient if we try to get too specific in the master plan uh you know we end up spending a lot of time talking about details and and really we uh you know we need to dedicate some effort outside of the master plan itself to uh working out how we're going to get all this done. Great. So, this everybody everybody good with the suggested wording here. Hearing no objection. Okay, next one is transportation. These do bob around. I'm sorry about that. But this one's transportation. The comment is to add paving and installation of water sewer lines to be coordinated with um well road paving and installation of water sewer lines to be coordinated. So this seemed to make the most sense on page 73 of transportation. That's actually item 1.2.2. Repair and maintain roads to increase miles of pavement in good condition. What we could potentially add is a sentence of, you know, related services including water, sewer, storm water, and electric

upgrades can be coordinated during repaving when appropriate. I like it. Cool. Without objection. I like that one. That was good. Town service. Back to town services. uh water service must be improved and old lines replaced to prevent sedimentation and browning. Uh we thought this could add in the key finding because that is where we talk about how density might impact the need for bigger pipes to handle increased demand. So that kind of implied that only some pipes would need to be replaced. So, we thought this would be a good place to say all water pipes will eventually need to be replaced um and used that language from the comment. I tell um so that is not the reason for the sedimentation and browning, right? Um, so I hesitate for the master plan to go into this much detail about the water district since people already confuse Grafton like and think that the town of Grafton is in charge of the water district when that really might be part of the water district's action plan. So, we might be able to say something about um improving like I don't know if we can even improve co coordination or

um communication with the water department because that it's already a part of the zoning approval process. Um, but the sedimentation and browning isn't directly related to the age of the lines or the demands of the service. It's one particular well that has a higher amount of sediment and that combined with the requirement to add more chlorine to the water meant that more of that brown sediment was falling out of solution. So it like I hesitate to build that into this um just because it is a a completely separate problem and and it's tangentially related to growth and increased usage because that um well can be out of service except when we have peak usage. Um, and there is already a plan for an additional treatment facility. Um, so I don't know what we already have in here about partnering with the water department, but replacing pipes and that kind of a thing is is not something that we have sufficient control over that I'd be pretty comfortable putting that in here. Okay, please. Um I think it's Ann Marie masquerading is the second Fiona Coughlin. Yeah, I don't know how I can Fiona. I'm assuming that you have to change that on your end, not mine. But anyways, yes, it's Anmarie. Um, so I I'm just looking at the CMRP's response here and I feel comfortable with the beginning part of it and perhaps um, you know, larger pipes may be necessary to

handle the increased demand as opposed to will be and then perhaps delete that last you know all water pipes will need to eventual replacement which may in fact be true but to Shantel's point maybe not we're not going to put this in the the town master plan per se but I I think that leaving the the first part of it and we obviously have a problem with um you know with with trying to meet demand ongoing. So I think that you know increase in water sewer capacity is needed. I I fully support the first part of your um response there. And in fact, the the water district just at their last meeting indicated that they had to um turn away a proposal for some sort of an industrial um complex coming in because they did not have the the supply. So I think it's it is important to have the first part of it and maybe just to Shantel's part point just we're not going to talk about whether or not we need to replace all the pipes versus some. So, we can do no change because this first sentence is already in there. Yeah, Lindsay, your hand is up. Yes, thank you. Um, yeah, I agree with Amory and Chantel um as well. And I I do think that the beginning part, you know, the water services must be improved, you know, as growth continues in Grafton, you know, something like that. And that, you know, if that's already there, that's great. And I think that that's a safe thing to put in without overstepping or kind of, you know, confusing um, you know, the the issues with the water. Thanks. Great. Hey, Shantel again. Yeah, just to follow up. I mean, maybe it would be more appropriate just to add um, if that

first part is already in there, maybe add a sentence that says something like it will be important to partner closely with the Grafton Water District. um to you know for new projects or what have you. Maybe just mentioning partnering closely with them instead of assuming that they will assuming what their needs will be if that makes sense. And to add on to what Chantel is saying, if we're clarifying that the communication is going to be important, highlighting the fact that it falls outside of the town, that the water district is its own municipality, just just spelling it out there so that when people are reading this that they're aware. Yeah. And just just to make sure we're not tilting towards one water district and forgetting the other, uh we always need to keep in mind that when we talk about water and grafting, we're not talking about the water district. We're talking about the two water districts, but one is more in more in the public's awareness these days, but they're they're both they're they're both part of us. and deserve equal attention. All right, so we'll leave this one pretty much as is. Anything else on that one? I think we have Yes, we have language on independently owned Grafton Water District and South Grafton Water District and talks about coordinating with them. So, I think the key finding should cover what this group is looking for and we'll do no change for this. Okay, moving on. Transportation

Pleasant Street sidewalks to connect Main Street to the town center. Uh we talk about Pleasant Street as a crash cluster and a dangerous road based on community feedback. What we could add to push even further for this is adding Pleasant Street as a priority road under action item 2.3.2, increased miles of sidewalk for pedestrians. As of now, we do not call out any specific sidewalks. We lean on the complete streets findings for which sidewalks to increase uh as a separate action item. So that's why I was a little nervous to add just Pleasant Street. Um, and we did other suggestions to add other roads. Um, but as of now, the action item calls for aligning with the complete streets findings of which sidewalk should be added. Yeah, I I would prefer for us to avoid making such specific, you know, specific streets as as recommendations here because, you know, we do we do reference the complete streets prioritization plan which has a a list of two or three dozen streets where sidewalks are needed. Uh so I think it's it's that kind of detail where our our longer term vision or our our longer term uh objective in the master plan is is really not so much some specific areas that need sidewalks as it is make making sure we've lo we recognize the need and we have the complete streets plan which goes into a a lot more detail on

where sidewalks are recommended and a prioritization. So, I I I just do not mention specific streets as in as is the case here. Uh Lindsay, yes, thanks. I agree with that. Um because I I think I feel like we've been told before that Pleasant Street they're not able to even put sidewalks on. Um when we were talking about um the development on 59 Pleas Yeah. Um yeah, I don't know that this is a this is um even feasible on Pleasant Street. I don't know. Yeah, probably best to leave it. Yeah, some some of the comments we've received here are people uh perhaps not being aware of the complete streets plan and other other work that's already in progress. But you know these are things that came to mind of those who are submitting comments and that's entirely fair. They you know they they think of particular particular examples that uh you know are illustrative of a need and so they're going to mention it here. But uh yeah, Shantel, um I may be remembering this incorrectly. Um but first, I guess I wanted to check in on whether we were leaning entirely on the complete streets prioritization or whether there was some language in there that um sort of indicated analyzing our own needs. because my recollection is that the complete streets is based on a state formula in terms of what's likely to qualify for state funding and that might not necessarily align with um what residents

view as priorities in terms of main arteries for walking. Um, so I feel like Pleasant Street, I know that there are sections of it that they're saying like they wouldn't even like that there's not enough shoulder really to even build a compliant sidewalk. I'm not sure that's a reason to give up on the whole road. Um, I'm also not comfortable calling out streets by name, but I would maybe be more comfortable if there were a sentence that recognized that this state formula and where we're likely to get state funding is maybe not the end all and be all in terms of what um streets our residents are more likely to walk on. Um, I don't know if that made sense, but yeah. And I think just to just to follow up on that and then there's some other hands raised, but a follow-up thought I have is that we we in a few places in the master plan discuss some general, you know, principles or or suggestions for where sidewalks might be needed. We have some we have some wording about filling in gaps in the sidewalk network. We have some wording about uh en enhancing pedestrian the ability of pedestrians to you to to go where they want to go. So some kind of generic language like that where we've identified some of the some of the important considerations for evaluating the need for a sidewalk. is is good to cover that kind of thing in the master plan, but you know, and at most you could use and I think we you there's one place that we did, you know, use an example of a gap in the sidewalk

network, but it was it was mentioned just as as one example of and and I remember when when I suggested that there were at least two other similar examples that we could have included, but then you know, you don't want to you know, you don't want give the impression that you're listing out all the different things that we might need to do. Uh so I'll go to the hands raised. Brian. Yes, thank you. I one of the ones that didn't know anything about the street uh complete streets plant. No idea what that is. Um, but Chantel gave a good explanation and um, I liked um, the add-on in terms of uh, you know, the residents will know some probably a little bit more versus what the state is would would fund, let's say. Um, you know, is it is it always important to look to the state of funding when it's a critical area, you know, of your town that you think is important and the state doesn't think it's important? Um I I like to point out uh Carol Road because to me it's a very busy street and uh you know uh there's there's a high school and a and a junior high school right within you know um a few feet of Carol Road and and we have nothing on that road. So to me it's it's there's a lot of a lot of homes on this roads a lot of kids you know that go to school you know the size homes in there shutter homes that they go to school to these to these locations but to your point David um you know I understand you can't put everything into the master plan um but we also filled out a map as I recall at one of the sessions that we went to where we had to put pins in and said okay where do you think you need

sidewalks and I specifically remember that. So why did it why did we come out with a plan that said where do you need sidewalks and then not mention it in the master plan? That's I guess my question. Yes, those roads from community engagement are in the key findings as we have a list of places that people wanted sidewalks and a list of what people thought were dangerous roads. Um so that could be for cars and people. Um, so the key findings kind of roll into the action items of, you know, we should be building more sidewalks and they should be accessible and when possible we could align with the complete streets plan. But the key findings really go into everything we learned from Grafton residents on what they would like. And as Dave mentioned, those examples are kind of trickled in. But yeah, we don't like to limit the action items because then if another street comes up, um, it won't be covered kind of thing. Yeah. By by the way, Carol Road is number 13 on the complete streets prioritization list. Number 13. 13 out of 35. Okay. All right. Good enough. Some of your This is just a quick question. the streets that have been identified by residents as dangerous, is that verified by any metric to confirm whether those opinions are are true or based in any reality? I just I'm curious because I wonder if people could put their thumb on the scale in any kind of way by identifying certain areas of dangers that might not actually be dangerous. Not saying that that happened, I'm just curious. We have uh table two on page 68 is how mass dot deems roads dangerous or not.

Um so we have five roads or most of them are intersections that are crash clusters and these are just reported vehicle accidents. So we compare that to what people have been saying and there is a lot of overlap of course but that I think gives a little behind it of um the most dangerous in town. Okay. So on this particular item that we're looking at here, is the consensus of the group that we should not name this any specific streets here? Yes. Hearing hearing no objection. Fiona, your hand is up. Yeah, just um you know the complete streets prioritization plan that we have most likely lists all of these local roads um that people are concerned about anyway. So just a nod to to that maybe if that's easier. Um yeah because I do know that yeah call calling out individual streets it can also give off that um you know one's being prioritized over the other and that could get a bit hairy depending on you know because everyone obviously thinks their individual street is is important and they are. Um yeah and I also just clarifying that yeah complete streets is the jurisdiction of that is obviously only local roads and just be you know I think there was a comment earlier about um streets kind of being deemed unsuitable for sidewalks. So yeah, I think you know there is valid point with that but there also you know streets it would be expensive but streets can be modified um at any time you know it there's a lot of coordination that is involved with that

like taking of property and expanding the roadway and what have you but um you know nothing nothing is you know in terms of installing a sidewalk it could it could be done if there was community, you know, support behind it. And um I've seen sidewalks go in on streets that are really teenytiny. Right. Anything else on this one? If not, let's move to the next one. Parking around the common. Yes, this is a request for a major change in recommendations. And this comment to summarize it is saying this person disagrees that there is a parking issue around the common and is fearful that creating more parking lots would get out of hand. Um, so this I leave up to the committee. I'd say if you do wish to move into this direction, there are two places that we could take out. um look for additional parking around the common on page 38 and page 46. But both of these are not necessarily action items. They're just listed into bullet points of recommendations for the area. Any thoughts or comments on this one? Ann Marie? Uh while I I appreciate the feedback, um for me, I don't agree with us changing uh what we have in the plan based on this comment.

Yeah, I'm I'm inclined to leave the plan as is on this one. Any disagreement, Shantel? Yeah, the only um statement that seems like the 38, 43, and most of 46 are pretty general. Um, and I know that businesses around the common have said they feel like there's not enough parking. Um, the only one that seemed a little bit even specific was the sentence in 46 that says this includes the provision of adequate parking. um that was the only one that maybe I would be in favor of taking out, but otherwise everything else seems um like uh mild enough that it doesn't really even conflict with what this resident is saying about adequate parking. So Shantel, you were suggesting taking out the one sentence that says this includes the provision of adequate parking. Yep. So either no change at all or just taking out that one sentence would be my only recommendation. Anybody else have any thoughts on that? Colleen, finally question. Is this a yellow or a red? This is a major change. So that's why it's red and in D, but the response from SUMRBC is yellow. This could go either way. Too color coding. Well, if I don't hear any objections

from anybody else, let's go with Shantel's suggestion. I'm just removing that one sentence, leaving everything else as is. I think Ann Marie has her hand up. She might have an objection. Yeah, which is fine. Yeah, just for what it's worth, I would rather leave it as is. Um, I just I wasn't sure that we were moving ahead. Um, so I didn't want to take out that provision. All right. So, no change. So, let let's Victoria. Yeah, I'll throw my hand in hand in the ring. I I I agree with Ann and Marie. I don't think we should remove it. We're a car dependent town, so I think it just makes sense to point out that the parking is a requirement, right? Anybody else want to weigh in on this? Henry, you're your hand is still up. Oh, thank you. Okay, so on balance, it sounds like we're we're more inclined to leave it as is, right? All right, next question is back to town services. Um, this is wondering why Nelson Park/ library is not a potential for some of these projects? Um, from what I understand, the land and library were trusted to the town and managed by their own board. But the has the area been considered for taking on some of these goals? I saw this. If the committee would like to make a change, I think this would be more appropriate under open space and wreck. Um there is an action item 1.3 uh expand open space and recreation

facilities into areas lacking amenities. Um, and then I added some language that could be used. Consider additional use and amenities at Nelson Park. Attached the Nelson Library in North Grafton. Sees occasional use as a recreational field, which is correct, I think. Check me on that if I'm wrong. This town owned asset could be optimized through additional maintenance and amenities such as storage sheds, benches, and lighting. Yep. I think occasional use as a recreational field is probably the word occasional is probably not right there because it sees a lot of use through the uh particularly the little league I know uses a lot and and so I think it it sees substantial use as a recreational field and they have over the years some some amenities have been added to it. Um perhaps more could be done but you know it does it does see a fair amount of use already. Yeah. Uh just to I guess piggy back to what you just said I think occasional is an understatement and that it is actually quite well utilized um not by little league but by the girls softball league. uh so in the summer it's quite well utilized and then additionally there is a trust that oversees you know the usage of the facilities etc. Um so I would be I would not be in favor of us putting specific language into the master plan as to the you know the future of those facilities per se. Perhaps we could make recommendations to the trust or, you know, people in recreation in the future could could make a recommendations to the trust, but I think that that happens actually at

this point. Yeah. Um, so yeah, if I'm not mistaken, we did a the recreational facilities strategic plan. Oh gosh, now I don't remember for sure. I think they may have mentioned Nelson Nelson Park. Shantel. Um, yeah. In addition to that, there's some pretty specific language in the trust in terms of what its allowed usage is. Um, so I we don't have fle like legal flexibility to just say, hey, this is a town building. Let's do something different here. Um, I'm pretty sure there's even language in it that says there has to be a library on the property. Like that was one of the conditions of the family having gifted it to the town. Um, so I I mean if we were going to change anything, I think it would be um it would need to be pretty general and maybe a statement about partnering closely with the trust that oversees Nelson Park to ensure we're optimizing usage or something along those lines. Yeah. the the the limitations on that land, the the the terms of the will basically, as you noted, required the town to maintain a library there and limits the use to and I think the I think the limitation on use is pretty broad to recreational use. So, it's it's it's dedicated for use as a as a I used I used to know what the words were, and I could look them up if I had time, but I'm not going to take the time now. It's basically it's dedicated to the town for use as a park sl for park/recreation purposes. It's managed by the Nelson trustees and the land is owned by the town but it's it's I I think it's technically owned. No, maybe it's owned by the trustee. I don't remember. I think it's technically owned

by the town but managed by the trustees. But in any case, to explore additional opportunities for for the use of this area, the town would be working with the Nelson trustees to uh explore possible, you know, future enhancements. Sue, I I'm just agreeing with Sean telling you that we need to partner with the library trust. I was always under the impression that the library trust owned land that that was their land. it wasn't the towns, but I may be wrong. It's been a long time since I read the trust, but I think partnering with the trust who does have the authority over um what they could do um seems to be the only solution for that. So, I agree. We just with David and Shantel, we just partner with them and work something out. How do we like this language in column F? Consider partnering with the Nelson Trust. Is that the official name? It's not Nelson Park Trust. Let me let me see here. To optimize use and amenities at the existing recreational field. Sounds good to me. Yeah, I'll have to double check on the on the official name. I don't want to take it. I've got it somewhere in my machine here, but rather than taking I think it might be Nelson Memorial Park and Memorial Library trustees. It's Nelson Park and Memorial Library. Um, but if you're looking for the name of the trustees, it's the Nelson Memorial

Park and Memorial Library trustees. Um, so I think any either would work. And this really isn't a departure. Sorry, I just hopped in without being called on, but it's not a departure from what is happening currently, just FYI. So, is that a continue partnering instead of consider. Yes, that was my preference. Yeah. Yes, because the town the town does has been partnering partnering with the trustees for ages on this. Great. So, we ready to move on? Any objection? Move on. Okay. This one is multi-chapter. the old BP and pepperoni express. So we talk about this area in a few different chapters. It's in the natural cultural chapter as introduced in additional additional natural amenities. Uh I remember when we talked about that we were considering that area especially um the economic development chapter um talks about it for the vacant storefront programs. Most of the recommendations in the economic development chapter keep it pretty broad for recommendations of all the village and commercial districts. Um, so I didn't have a good example of what adding more information about this area could look like, but definitely open to it if you think there's another specific way we could address this area. Yeah. Yeah. I I think that we've adequately addressed that this area of town already. You know, this the specific

issue of of of two buildings that don't look so great is that that's another one of these spec specific things like specific street names that really don't belong in the master plan. Victoria, I was just going to say the same thing. My guess is that the individual that wrote this comment was probably reading one of those sections and this area specifically popped into their head and that's why they wrote it down. So, I think it's self-referential and I agree. Same thing is as sidewalks. Um, we shouldn't add it specifically. Yeah, Fiona. Yeah, I was just um I'm not on you know obviously I'm not in the group so I'm trying to kind of not um start to be too much but I I definitely would be concerned about reducing commercial areas would not be preferable. So do no change for this? No change. Yeah, just uh not this specifically, but I just wanted to to confirm that somewhere in the master plan that we addressed just parcels like this that have been you know basically it seems that someone has walked away from it. Um is that anywhere that we will continue to um you know try to work with land owners to make the best use or highest use of properties period. I think we have several action items in the economic development chapter that are aimed at uh enhancing and encouraging business and commercial development and and retention. Great.

I think the most direct ones are about certain grants that the town can partner with, but those do kind of assume there is an active owner to communicate with. Yeah. Okay. We'll do no change. This one is on town services supporting the library. Please have them stay open until 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 2 p.m. is too early to close. Would be nice if there were at least a few afternoon hours on Sundays. So, I think the closest to this is action item 1.3.1 in town services on page 102. We call for an increased capacity in teen services and programming and narrative calls for additional library capacity specifically for the teen room as the thing that came up most specifically. We could potentially stretch this to full library capacity. Um, under objective just above that action item, there's a sentence that says the library is in need of additional staff to support passport and notary services, art gallery plans, and 3D printing. We could potentially add and additional hours to that list of why additional staff could be used. trying to tell rather than um specifying additional hours, could it say something along the lines of exploring um hours to support maximum usage or something more along those lines or optimizing hours to um maximize usage? um something vague like again not necessarily committing to an increase in

hours, right? But maybe being open shorter hours on a day that nobody goes would allow them to open for 4 hours on Sundays kind of thing. Um, and again, I don't know all the details of that, but um, I' I'd hesitate to commit to expanding hours, if that makes sense. So, um, I just think I agree, but I think the library trustee has a lot to say in this. Um, I don't think that Evan can just go ahead and do all of this. the library trustees um especially runs the library and they hire the director. So I think we should say something to the effect that we that we will partner with or work with the library trustees to increase capacities etc etc because I think we have to go through the library trustees. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that's how it was set up. Yeah. And in fact, you don't see it in the master plan document necessarily, but in the implementation matrix, the action item implementation matrix, uh the the library is identified as the primary responsible agency for this and and we we may see that in a number of case. You don't you don't see in the narrative of the action items here. You don't see who we think is going to be responsible for for doing all that. But in in in this case here, the implementation matrix is going to identify the the library as the primary responsible party for implementing this action item. So

it's it's on them to work out what they were going to do to implement this action item. And you know the action item 1.3.1 is specifically talking about capacity for teen services and programming. Uh there may be either that action item might be expanded or there may be another action item under which this belongs or maybe the question of library hours really isn't a topic for the master plan per se and Marie. Yeah, that would be my point is the the goal of the master plan is not to micromanage how any um department is being run and this you know this type of um feedback should be given directly to the library andor the town or the the trustees but I don't think that this has any place in the uh in the master plan. We're not micromanaging or even managing um services to this degree. Any other thoughts, Colleen? So, when we were talking earlier about um more Saturday events and Saturday meetings, the way we worded it that way, could we make it kind of just vague to potentially look into at all or is it just something we don't want to touch at all? Because I don't want to necessarily negate this feedback at all. Um this was a pretty big project that the town invested in and and people want to use it more. Um, and if we had it open more, maybe that does create more

opportunities to have meetings. Um during that time people were requesting Shantel. I'd be in favor of a of something like Colleen was suggesting where it's broad enough to indicate that we think it's a priority for the um hours to align well with residents needs and sort of for residents to have as much access as possible without being so specific that it feels like we're micromanaging. Right? So like saying increase hours feels like we're micromanaging. Specifying how we optimize hours feels like micromanaging, but indicating that like we want there to be a spirit of the library being open at times that really serve the public, that to me feels very broad and and something that's very aligned with what a master plan should be doing. We have a sentence under 1.3.1 that says, "Library staff have encountered large demand for afterchool and weekend services for children and teens." And that angle could be where we're helpful of, you know, we've heard people say this and people want to go to the library on the weekends. So we could stretch that to I mean if if this committee thinks there is a demand for longer weekend hours just from your anecdotal evidence of living in town, we could stretch that sentence to a demand for weekend services for the full library. Okay, Victoria, I think that's reasonable. I I also think that the suggestion in kind of after the this conversation was had the suggestion that you you've

already outlined um makes a lot of sense, right, to just add the libraries need of additional staff to support passport notary services. Our gallery plans through printing and expanding hours based on community need and feedback. and Marie. Uh, I I'm all set. I I just I don't think that Yeah, I just agree with putting any of this in there, but I'll leave it at that. Any other thoughts on this? So this is the the suggestion to add expanding hours based on community feedback. Is that the narrative under objective 1.3 that that's going to be added to or suggested to be added to? Shantel, I it's maybe super picky, but could we use a word like optimizing ours based on community feedback rather than necessarily expanding? Does that work for everybody? If someone has a different word, that obviously is fine. I just I don't like boxing into increase or decrease or or being that specific. Thanks, Emry. If that's how we go, then perhaps we need to add pending staffing because of course the issue is we haven't been able to expand or accommodate increased hours because of staffing. Yeah, it would go at the end of this sentence. The library is in need of additional staff.

Yeah, that that right that connects to the staffing. Okay. Anything else, Amry? Anything else from anybody on this? All right, next one is I believe best in quality of life. Um, virtual town meetings are preferred and increased accessibility. Where this would fit the best is action item 1.2.2 on page 225 again that assess public meeting processes to determine measures to increase accessibility. Um, could add we have a sentence this could include simplifying language, offering explanations and providing materials in advance for better understanding. could throw something in about virtual meetings to that sentence if this committee would like to add that. Yeah. The thing the thing that bothers me about this one is that they seem to be the comment seems to be referring to uh the annual town meeting and we've you know I've heard this any number of times over the last few years. problem is by law we cannot conduct our town meetings virtually. If we had a representative town meeting form of government yes we could do that but open town meetings the it is currently not possible to conduct them virtually by law. other meetings. You know, if you're thinking of practically any other meeting, a board or a committee meeting, we do a lot of those virtually already on on Zoom. But I think my impression is that this

comment is specifically referring to the, you know, the annual town meeting. And in m much much as we might like to run those virtually, we can't even contemplate that. So to me, this comment uh we we don't change the plan in response to this comment. Any uh any other thoughts on that? Brian. Yeah, I agree with you, David, but the um maybe uh the act access to streaming for people that can at least view the town meeting versus participate in it. Um, I understand your point. You can't participate virtually because it's legally not possible, but would giving more access to more virtual type of I guess streaming um, if it isn't already happening enough. I I I don't know. I know they do record these things, but I I don't know how much to what extent. That's my only point. Yeah. I think u the quality of life action item 1.2.2 assess public meeting processes to determine measures to increase accessibility. Now that you know public meeting processes in general to increase accessibility, yeah, we've got some, you know, we could to the extent that it is at all feasible or permissible. No doubt we can do we can do more to

make virtual meetings accessible. Um, we have quite a few boards and committees that do conduct their meetings uh on Zoom or or hybrid where they're broadcast on local cable and on and accessible on Zoom and we have some that still don't that some that don't. So encouraging more board and committee meetings to be done to be broadcast live on cable andor zoom is certainly a a part of at least an implicit part of this action item and maybe you don't need to I don't know if if you want to add something like something to mention virtual meetings as part of the topic of public meeting process in processes in general as one of the possible actions that can be taken. Yeah, we could do that. I just you know I don't want I don't want to give anybody the impression that we could do a and and just for the for the annual Tom meetings those are uh barring technical difficulties those are broadcast live on cable you know so people can sit at home and watch those they just can't participate that's already there anyway and then Sue is there any way we can reference the select board policy that um encourages these committees to be recording themselves because we still have a number of committees that are opting to meet in G and they aren't recording. Trails committee comes to mind. Historic comes to mind and one of them even got an open meeting law violation and said that they would be recording themselves and they still aren't. And so just the enforcement mechanisms of what we already have in place. So by referencing the select board policy of that recording to help that increased accessibility um for people to watch would be important I think.

Okay. Sue. Um, I I think that this is referencing just the annual town meeting in the spring and in the fall. I don't think they were talking about any other meetings because they're talking about the kids have to go to bed at time and then the seniors can't drive at night. So, I think this is specifically for town meeting, not meetings in general. Right. Yeah. The the comment here is specifically about town meetings. Agreed. The action item that's mentioned here is not specific to to dominating. So although so so what we what we may be talking about here is do we expand the text under that action item to specifically mention virtual meetings knowing full well that that doesn't apply to the uh or formal town meetings. Lindsay Do you think it's worth mentioning that it um you know if they're trying to if they're referring to the annual town meetings um do you think it's worth mentioning that like we can't it's like legally not we're not they were not able to do that and you know just so that way it kind of answers that question or do you think that's not really important to go into the master plan? I think that might change in the next like 20 years or something. Yeah, I the thought crossed my mind that we could take every one of these public comments and publish the list of comments with an explanation of how we responded to them. But other I don't know that we need to do that and that's that's some that's some extra work maybe and we've got enough on our plate just to finish up this the master plan document itself. Um

the going back to that quality of life action item that's quoted there. uh to my to the best of my recollection that is not in a context that is specific to the annual town meetings. Mhm. Shantel, I I'm trying to remember, but I feel like there is something in there about exploring barriers to attendance and trying to resolve them. I I maybe I'm imagining it, but I thought we kind of had a conversation about this and that was in there somewhere because on the one hand I get that they're asking about virtual town meeting, but they are um discussing two other barriers to attendance and that does seem to be one of our goals. For me, I'm more comfortable keeping it exploring because I feel like whenever free child care has been offered, it hasn't been well attended. Um, but again, the lateness of the hour is a big reason I think that people don't um want necessarily to have their kids um in child care. Um, but I feel like I I'm also not sensing that I don't know. I feel like to me more explanation needs to happen to really understand whether this is a barrier or um a barrier that a problem that people actually want solved or if people just god I don't want to sound awful but or if it's more just people wouldn't go anyway even if it was on a Saturday or earlier or all of these I think the other action item you're referencing is 2.1.2 two, assess current barriers to volunteerism and make

appropriate changes very similar to this um meeting accessibility and we go into similar ADA compatibility of meetings, interpretation services, inclusive language stipens, reduce the length of meetings, sorry everybody, and term limits. So that's a very similar that we could also add more of what was Colleen was saying of having them in person and virtual that could be a more appropriate spot for this comment knowing that they might be talking about annual town meeting but it's a a point well taken for all public meetings that we could incorporate Brian. Yeah, I'm I'm trying to recall. Didn't we have um some town meetings on a Saturday at one a few times? I mean, I I recall that being out in the football field or something um during CO. Yes, I did. That was CO. Yeah. Okay, that's what it was. Okay. Yeah. So, it was on a Saturday, right? So, I mean, I don't know that seemed to get pretty well attended, but that's only one or two instances. So, I I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but just kind of throwing that out there. Maybe people can make comments on that and discuss it. Yeah. Uh, Colleen, since co a lot of communities did adopt going to Saturday's graph and tried and it didn't pass at town meeting, we could always try again, but I don't know if that's necessary for the master plan to figure out right now. Um, just wanted to let Brian know. Yeah, I think it's I think it's sufficient for the master plan to talk about assessing quoting again, assessing

public meeting processes to determine measures to increase accessibility. So, we're, you know, we've got a goal here and an action item, which is to, you know, let let's let's go try to figure out what we can do to increase accessibility, to increase participation, but we don't know in the master plan, we don't know what might work. So, we're what we are saying in the mastermind is let let's look at this and try to figure out ways to make it work. But we're not, you know, we're not, we don't know when we're writing the master plan. We don't know what might work, but we know that the town needs to find ways to make things work better, which all goes back to do we do we actually need to change anything in the master plan specifically regarding this comment or the the general topic of virtual meetings? Any uh to that I would say no. Any other thoughts? So, hearing none, no objection. Let's uh leave that one as is. Yeah, that's a great point, Dave, that a lot of these we might not find appropriate for the master plan, but they are really interesting if you all read them for other processes. I think they could help especially with implementation. This one is introduction. Um this was about a sentence the public schools are recognized for delivering high performance relative to funding. Uh and this resident says that might be misleading due to budgetary troubles.

My response was if you read the text, it's very carefully worded of public schools are recognized for delivering high performance relative to funding. So, this is the introduction so we don't get too much into the budget. Um, but I wanted to bring this to the committee. If you think this sentence is inappropriate, I could give you a little bit of context about what it's around. It's in the community and quality of life paragraph. We talk about Grafton has high levels of volunteerism, civic engagement, sense of pride, public schools, history, architectural character. Um, so that's the context of what this sentence is in. I am happy to take it out if it feels inappropriate and Marie, I wholly disagree with this statement. I'm not sure who, you know, again, referencing lack of leadership. Is that current leadership? Is it the school? Where is it? Um, I just think that this is inappropriate to even consider for the master plan. Shantel, yeah, I I agree that we wouldn't want to say anything about lack of leadership. I understand why the person is confused because I think they're reading this sentence as saying the public schools are well funded, right? Like I I think they're saying instead of um like tied to the funding, right? Like we fund our schools like we're very lean. We're a lean town and we get great results in spite of being lean. But I I hear what this person is saying without all the noise about the leadership and what have you. Um but I think I think there's got

to be a way to tweak the sentence just to make sure that it's more clear that um our funding like we don't spend boatloads of money, right? Like if Newton and Weston are having problems in their schools like like that's a big that's that's a big problem. like we do well because for a whole lot of of reasons and money doesn't necessarily buy quality. I also see the point of after the budget discussions this year in order to maintain the level of service that we are currently providing unless we have some amazing revenue stream come in you know we're going to need resident support. We're going to need um elected official support. We're going to need, you know, to it's going to be a pretty critical year in terms of Grafton determining whether they want to continue where we are and fund in order to continue to achieve those objectives. I don't necessarily think that that's a problem for the master plan to solve, but I also don't think it's appropriate to um leave it out altogether. So, I see lots of other hands, so I'll leave it at that for now. Okay, Colleen, I think Chantel kind of just offered um a solution where in the in the yellow section, the public schools are recognized for delivering high performance relative to lean funding and just include the word lean there. Um with that, that's not going to get too specific, but it still kind of acknowledges that we are um budgeting as tightly as possible. And I don't know if we want to mention our reliance on overrides. I mean, we are in a structural deficit. We have been now for over 10 years. I don't see us getting out of it in the next 10 years, but I

don't know if it's appropriate for this particular section. Okay, Bob. Yeah. Do we know if this item and the next item were they submitted by the same individual? Because um if you read both of these together, there definitely seems like an agenda here. Yeah, there were a few in a row. I'm not sure if it's the same person, but they were in a row. um about the schools. Yeah. Um so yeah, I would support the lean funding comment on the prior item on the introduction section. Yep. That's basically a true statement that uh up to now up to now at least our public schools have been recognized for delivering high performance relative to the funding they have available. And so, you know, and lean funding is probably a good way to characterize that. I Any other thoughts? Okay. Are we all good with just revising that sentence to add the word lean in there to characterize the level of funding? If if CMRPC comes up with a prettier way to say that like and make it more clear that it's a contrast with the funding and not that we're patting ourselves on the back for how much money we're putting into the schools. I like lean. Yeah. Okay. Anything else on this one? Moving on then. Okay. We had so this is on this is now committee comments uh in yellow. We had a request to add a trail map. It was under transportation but I think it

would fit better under open space. Um I don't believe we have an accurate trail map layer of every single map. And I get a little nervous with trail maps because of ownership and some people think some trails are real trails, but it might just be on the low. Um, if Grafton has a map that you would like to add maybe of just land trust land or or something like that, we could add it, but I don't think CRPC at this time has an accurate layer. No, I trail mapping to date has been fragmented and incomplete. So we have, you know, a few different sources of trail maps, all of which are partial, many of them of which have not been not been vetted in any any formal way. And so there's there really is no trail map that exists that I think would be suitable for inclusion in this master plan. I know we have some, you know, some folks in town, the between the conservation commission, the land trust, the trails committee, all have an interest in working on improving trail mapping, but uh it's not there yet, Brian. Yeah, Dave, I just be asking you what you'd be looking for. Uh because I haven't looked at it lately. I thought the um land trust rail uh trail maps were kept up to date, but I again I haven't looked at them in a number of years, so it could be different now. But what what is it what is it you're looking for that would be would make sense? Yeah. I don't I don't even know. And part part of my issue is that and I

I'm not the one who's looking for these trail maps, but I know it's it's come up it's come up in discussion came up a lot in discussion when we were uh updating the open space and recreation plan and it continues to come up every so often that that we it sure would be nice if we had uh in fact there off the top of my head I don't remember if we have an action item here in the master plan but I know we do in the open space and recck plan uh action items to develop improve enhance and develop a better trail maps in part to support emergency services. I mean, there's there there's a lot in there about that. Recognizing the need to de develop more complete and comprehensive trail maps, but to my knowledge, we don't yet have anything that would perhaps you would be looking for a map that shows you every trail in town, including connections to trails and adjacent towns and accessibility limitations. uh open to the public, not open to the public. Who do you have to ask for permission to use the trail? What condition is the trail in? Is it suitable for horses? Is it accessible for people with disabilities? Uh where can you park to get out there? Where are the trail heads? Are there any amenities along the way there? I mean, there's a lot that you might imagine putting into trail maps. And uh I I I don't I don't see any such maps being available that are sufficiently complete to pop into this master plan. So Fiona, your hand is up. So the conservation commission has been going out and physically mapping trails um within their jurisdiction. Um

it's a kind of an ongoing project. It obviously takes some time and it obviously depends on on availability of of staff around other duties but it is underway and I do remember you know we had a um meeting with the trails committee regarding mapping and accur and accuracy of mapping because there's a lot of trails even on the Grafton Land Trust page where I think that they're looking toward all trails and those types of more um larger scale websites and sometimes those aren't accurately reflecting the limitations on the ground. Um so I just kind of more of a comment of you know there is there is mapping going on. So I'm not sure if we want to just acknowledge that in some way or just say in a more general sense that that you know that's happening. Um, yeah, it's it's it's challenging because all trails will say a lot of people utilize that app, but it's not always accurate. So, I wouldn't want to use any of that data. Um, I can try I can get the I mean I think it's too it's kind of too late but I think you know if I if if you needed more information from the conservation commission about what they did to like plop in a sentence or two in the narrative I'm can get that quickly. We have a paragraph in open space most graft and land trust parcels are promoted and have trail maps available. Conservation lands in town are promoted on conservation commission page of the town website. Access points and parking areas are noted on trail maps. Okay, I think that's perfect. Lindsay, your hand is up. Yeah, I was just uh I agree with Fiona about you know maybe it's a good idea to

mention that even though you know we don't have it right now, we're working on it and you know with this the trails committee is pretty new I think and just kind of mentioning trying to you know make an effort over the next few years to you know get um more accurate trail maps and you know increase connectivity and um things like that. Mhm. Yeah, I think that should be covered well in that action item 1.2.2. It's it's called prepare paper and digital resources, promoting the town's recreation facilities, public open spaces, trail systems, and other resources to new residents and visitors. So, it goes over just basic trail mapping, but also how to make them even cooler. Yeah. So, I think we've sounds like we've got this adequately covered given that we we don't have any really neat trail maps that we can pop into the document right now. Move on. Move on. The next one is also transportation. Um, this is the objective on groundwater contamination. The comment is that this feels out of place in this chapter. Um the CMRBC recommendation is to keep this in because a lot of this falls under DPW um and a lot of the grants for storm water under Massachusetts Department of Transportation. So we like to put them in here even though it is a shift from sidewalks and bikes. Um just looking at the audience of every chapter and how we could reach people with climate information. Um but I'll put it up to committee if you'd like to take out this objective or potentially put it somewhere else. I I will say that when I first read this in its place in the transportation chapter, it struck me as a bit odd, but then I realized that most of the storm

water management work occurs in and around the roadways. Mhm. It is very it is very closely connected with the transportation network and as you point out it is basically managed by the department of public works whose jurisdiction is the roadway network. So I it didn't take me too much time to convince myself that although it might look out of place, it really isn't. Shantel, could we just put something in the title of the objective? Um, specifically referencing roadways, mitigate groundwater contamination from roadways through storm water management or mitigate groundwater contamination through storm water management of roadways, driveways, parking. You know what I mean? Like if we just put those words in there, then it might make that connection easier. Yeah. Looking at the action items, it covers culverts, um, design along the roads, and just general MS4 requirements. So, it's pretty broad, but we could say something like mitigate groundwater transport groundwater contamination from the transportation network through storm. Perfect. I love that. Yeah, because the bridges are also in here. Cool. Does that look good? Anything else on this?

Everybody comfortable with this? Yep. Okay. All right. Next. Uh, transportation page 88. We have an action item on electric vehicle charging on public property. And this recommended change was to also include private property. And I would recommend keeping this action item to just the public thinking about the jurisdiction of this plan, but open to comments. This is page 88. And right, I agree with your recommendation. Yeah. Brian. Well, we we're partnering with businesses all the time in in town to do certain things. I mean, I don't think it's a much of a stretch to partner with them for electrical vehicle charging and hybrid property if that's um something we want to do. Um I don't know to what extent do we need to mention it in the plan here. Um um you know because it's very specific. Um but we you know that's something that towns do all the time you know working with businesses. So it's not I don't think it's unusual. Yeah. I think here is this is more of like a free market discussion rather than something that the town would need to partner with businesses. It might just come naturally. Yeah. One thing that we do see with uh from the planning board when we see

someone come in with plans for a business, they they will fairly typically include uh EV charging stations. Um I don't know I don't think we currently are in a position to require them to provide EV charging uh from a town level. there may be some state incentives or programs or regulations that that may direct them. But other than encouraging pe people businesses to install charging stations, uh what other forms of partnership? I mean, when I when I hear the the the term partnership, I tend to think of us providing them with some financial incentives of some kind. And I don't know what the what the opportunity Yeah, maybe partnership is a little too strong of a word. I think you're right. I think maybe that's maybe that's not necessary to say partnership. Um maybe encouraging. I don't know. Um so I I think we should just keep it public property. I think we're going to open up a big can of worms if we do anything differently. I just like it the way it is. Yeah. Fiona, sorry that was an accident. Okay. Yeah. In terms of an action that the town can undertake here. Yeah. Mhm. for the for the town to proactively install EV charging stations on all town property over which we have control. That's what we're already we're already recommending in the action item. Uh beyond beyond that,

I don't know what else we want the master plan to say about this. Right. and and the state does um through stretch code and other regulations um require you know installation of of EV spaces. Some you know some applicants proposing new development will go beyond the minimum which is great. Um but um yeah, it's kind of it's kind of handled um at this at the state level when we adopt when we adopted the stretch code and the building department kind of handles that as well. Y unless I hear an objection, I I'll say that the committee says we're fine with fine the way it is. Great. Next one. Okay. Um this one is on land use figures 41A and 40 or sorry 14A and 14B. Uh so these are the density maps and there's a suggestion to change the color. Right now red is the least dense and blue and green is more dense. U I think we discussed this but I couldn't remember. I don't remember us discussing the color scheme. Okay. We had we had some issues with the the map being less than ideally readable between some of the some of the issues around you know the the blank areas on the map and some terminology. Now since this is my map I'll say first of all if the group would like to see a different color scheme I could I could create a map using any sort of a color scheme almost anything

but uh if we wanted to make red dense and green not dense I could do that. However, the implication of using red for high density is red is bad. And I don't think in the context of everything we're recommending in this master plan. I don't think we want to convey the impression that density is high density is bad. And in fact, that's why I chose the color scheme I did. with red being the least dense and green and blue being the most dense because I did not want to imply that density is bad. So, oh, like I said, I I can change the color scheme if if if the group so desires. So, Lindsay, yeah, I Dave, thanks for explaining, you know, why you did that color scheme that way. Um, but I I will say when I saw that that um image, it's like it it does it kind of it makes it look like the whole area is like a hot spot cuz it's red. Look, it's just kind of like this instinctual thing about it that does make it seem like we're we're very densely populated only because of just thinking I don't know just natural tendencies I guess towards towards that. But um you know I uh thanks for explaining your rationale. Colleen, could we grayscale the map so the dense areas are just darker and the then the less is lighter but it's all the same gray so it doesn't imply anything other than light and dark. That could be done Shantel. Well,

I'm here. Any Oh, Any. Yeah. Sorry, your your hand went off. Well, I just as I hopped on, I took it down. Um, fine. I would say that Yeah, maybe Colleen's idea. I think that I agree with this post indicating that like, you know, is it deceiving or, you know, what are we trying to do with this red versus blue green? Um, and we don't want to be doing that. We want to let folks see what density is versus not. And perhaps going with a more neutral tone and making it darker for dense and lighter for not dense is a a good idea. Okay. Any other thoughts, excuse me, Shantel? Yeah, the only thing I would add is just not using red at all because I can understand why that would be confusing. And I also agree with not wanting it um to make it seem like density is bad. Um yeah, I think that's yeah that that's those are good ideas to to avoid conveying any value judgment about density and simply representing different densities with something that's easily perceived as different without any color connotations are good that indicate good or bad. So, Henry, but just to to confirm, but you still used red as your lower dense areas. No, Colleen's suggesting a grayscale. It would be No, but no, no, but what what we have currently is red as a lower dense area. Just confirming that. No, I think the Colleen's idea was to No, no, no. Eliminate the colors. Yes, I understand. What what do we have now? Right now we have red as low dense, right? The map

now is red is the lowest density. Okay. So you have red as a low dense area. Just confirming that. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I suppose I I I haven't tried work tried to do it in grayscale, but my only possible concern with that is is is how well the the the different shades of gray can be distinguished from one another. But I think I think I can do it in a way that's, you know, that's pretty clear that it'll be light gray to dark gray. Not black, but light light gray. light gray for low density and dark gray for higher density. And the different I thought we had 50 shades of green gray. I I I could I could use 50 shades of gray, but you wouldn't be able to tell the shades apart very well. And you you wouldn't you wouldn't perceive the fine the fine difference between level one and level two. Deborah, since the issue seems to be the uh association with red, you could just try changing red to violet, which doesn't have the same associations. Uh it may be easier to read than a grayscale map. Yeah. Well, I'll tell you what, I will I will I will do a grayscale version and I'll see what that looks like to me. And if if the contrast doesn't look great enough, then I'll I'll consider some different shades of color that don't have the same connotations. But I s I'm pretty sure a grayscale will work pretty well.

Awesome. Those are all of the yellow comments. Hooray. Uh, so I think we have great direction on all of those. I'm acknowledging that there are a lot of red comments that were basically up to CMRBC. Because of time, I didn't want to go through all of them, but I'm happy to take questions or we could open discussion about any of those red comments that we skipped over or greens. Yeah, I have a few comments on the red comments. Mhm. So, I'll kind of kind of work from top to bottom. I don't have that many, I don't think. But, um, the first one is row 10. Go the scroll. Okay. Yeah. So I think just to to clarify the historical reference slightly that is it is true that the select board meeting did discuss that it might be worth adding just the note that the outcome of the discussion was to retain the building. Okay. I think that would be simple. It it preserves the fact that yes, yes, this was discussed in 2024 and this is this is how that discussion came out came out. So just adding noting the outcome of the meeting that it's already referencing which decided to retain the building. Yep.

Does that work or additional at the end of that? That that works for me. That's that's the only thing I thought might be worth adding to to avoid any uncertainty about what had happened. So I'm moving down to row 18. Okay, there is in the paragraph that the comment is referencing. There is a reference to figure two near the end of the paragraph, but that sentence actually is described in table six. And the reference to table six at the beginning of the paragraph looks like it was meant to refer to figure 4. So this is page 36. Okay. So, table six is vacant parcel analysis developable acres by zone. Is it that reference? Yeah. So, the near the end of the paragraph there is a reference to figure two and I from the way it's used it looks like that's actually talking about the data in table six. Okay. Yep. So that whole paragraph is table six and there shouldn't be anything on figure two. Well, I right. I think the uh the other thought that I had reading that was that at up at the beginning of that paragraph, there's a reference to table six. And you might want to check this now. Don't you you don't you you can check this

when you have time, but it looked to me like that at the beginning of the paragraph. The reference to table six is really meant to refer to figure four, which is the graphical, you know, the the map showing where the developable land currently is. Yeah, my understanding was the map and the table should be the same. No, the map and table were two different things. At least it's to in my memory that's I think because I think if I'm if Yeah, that's something I I I don't need I don't want to dwell on that tonight. Okay. So, we'll change the first the first reference is probably figure four. Figure four. And then the reference to figure two at the end of the paragraph. It should be table six. Thank you. And let me see. I had Yeah, that's not it's not Oh, okay. So, let's the the the next the next item I wanted to comment on was row 54. They mentioned the Polish Hall and I would suggest that yes, the Polish Hall was brought up in the survey and deserves to be listed here since the community brought to to our attention. It might be worth noting

in this that the Polish Hall has since been demolished. So acknowledge the fact that it's no longer there while also acknowledging that people thought it was significant. So this is a bullet list. So we could do parentheses after Polish Hall. Yeah, that would work for me anyway. So there's a dot. So that site isn't active at all. That site now has a commercial building on it. Okay. Let's see. Did I have anything else I wanted to bring up here? This is one I'll just mention. It doesn't require any change to the master plan document. down in row 105. Mhm. The commenter noticed that figure 9 is missing Libby Lane and which is correct. Um the the map in figure 9 shows roads that have been accepted by the town. Libby Lane is the subdivision road that has not yet been accepted to the town. So that and other roads people are the roads exist but they're not on the map and for perfectly good reason. Cool. Thank you for bringing that up. I wanted to make sure it wasn't a secret village center that we was like oh god. Cool. Yep. And let's see. Did I have anything else?

Uh oh, and this is something I noticed. It's not in the list of comments here, but if you look uh in page 84 of the transportation chapter under action item 2.3.2, two, it references figure 19 for sidewalk conditions. It looks like that actually should be referencing figure 8. Okay, thank you. And let's see. Yeah, that's that that's it for anything I wanted to call attention to on the uh comments list or the the one other thing I never had to call attention to. So, anybody else have anything they want to discuss with particularly with res respect to the red the the red CMRPC responses because other than what I mentioned, I'm I'm I'm basically in agreement. Okay, I'm not I'm not hearing anything else. So, yeah, Sarah, you guys have some work to do to update the documents. I've got some homework to provide you with a new map. And other than that, where are we on our agenda? there.

So, that's that that's it for this group's uh review of all the public comments. So, next steps. Shantel, I'm not sure if you have this considered as a part of next steps, but um I know you had mentioned whether we should publish a document that has the public comment and what we did with it. Um, I don't know if we need to discuss tonight and I apologize I have too many windows open but um what our specific response is going to be to the comments and how we're going to acknowledge them because I definitely think we should acknowledge the people who took time to submit public comments but I don't know if that's something we need to talk about here or if there's already a plan for that. Any thoughts that count? Does this meeting count? I mean, we've we've gone through and reviewed a significant number of them. Um, I don't know. But I know what you're saying, Chantel. If we could just have I mean, this counts, too, right? Like, we it's here. other plans. We've published just the list and not responses as an appendix to the plan. Um, we have your web page up. If you think this would be appropriate, I would say there's no inappropriate comments on here really. Sometimes we get some trolls, but I feel comfortable publishing all of these comments without um editing any of them. I think if we wanted to say how we responded to them, it would be a little bit more work that might not be completed at the same time as the plan um to make this sheet as

external as possible, but would not be impossible to do. And Marie, I mean this video will be available right for everyone. So, I would think that this would be the response or if folks want to see if there's, you know, how we responded, it'll be available via this. Nope. You know, minutes and video. Yeah, that's fair. I guess I was just thinking we really um didn't talk about all of them, you know, but um even a generic like hey um thank you to those who responded um you know the feedback was reviewed um and considered something even if it's generic but I'm I'm fine with not doing it too. I just wanted to mention it before we transition to something else. Yeah, I think as Sarah suggested, we we'll as an appendix to the document, we'll publish a list of all the comments that received, which is I I I think that's a good idea to acknowledge that. Yeah, we we we got your comments. Um, it's a can be a fair amount of work to explain how we responded to the comments to each comment. Well, you know, explain, you know, we we we updated the document for this one. This one we didn't feel a need to update. and and then you get into explaining why. Uh I did something roughly comparable when we did the bylaw review

a couple of years ago. Um but there we had relatively few comments in the report of the bylaw study committee. I included a chapter that here here are the comments and suggestions we received that we didn't act on and there were few enough of them that it wasn't hard to explain and this is why we didn't act on it. Uh, I think we've got a lot more here. And I think we've got the the CMRPC response in the comment matrix here, which at least partly explains why we didn't update the document in response. But you'd want to for public for for a more public document, you you'd probably want to refine that a little bit. And that that could that could be more work. It might be sufficient to say that we got all these public comments. We incorporated them into the master plan where we felt it was appropriate to do so. But yeah, other otherwise I don't want I don't want to make a whole lot more work for anybody that unless we felt it was really important. No. And I wouldn't say an individualized reply is important by any means. Um just somehow acknowledging the people who did provide feedback and um making sure they know that it was read and considered even if it wasn't changed. Right? It's just basically, "Yeah, we heard you." Now, some people take it that if you didn't do what I said, then you didn't

really hear me. But, uh, I don't want to go there. All right, Sue. I I think what you just said, David, about acknowledging them and appreciating that they responded in a speedy manner and that we took into consider all those comments that abided by the Massachusetts state law and other zoning issues and whatnot. And um so that they kind of have an idea of why some of them were not considered at all. And I mean, we're not a five-year budget fund, so some of those budgetary issues couldn't be brought up. So, but certainly acknowledging them and some of these things were illegal. So so the master plan document overall we've been we've really been focused on the the the chapters the introductory chapter the uh the the topic chapters and but we we haven't really talked much about the rest of the document pretty much the appendices the implementation matrix. So can you give us sort of a a sense here of what the what the entire document is going to contain and well then we yeah you we do want to get into uh the next steps where are we going to go from here. Yeah. Uh the matrix that you now see in Excel form will be in PDF form along with the full plan but we will still give you that editable version. So that one is more for the public. Um, you can choose to put community engagement results in the appendex. Uh, some towns choose to do it. I would stress that sometimes it's

like 300 pages. So, we could do um we just have the summary of community engagement in the introduction. Now, um, but we could add things like presentations that we had at town meetings um, and full results of the workshop and the survey. It just won't look too glamorous. But that is absolutely something we could deliver. For me, I think the uh a compilation of the full results of the community engagement given as voluminous as Sarah says it is, I I probably would not want to incorporate that into the master plan document itself, but perhaps compile those results into a separate document, make them available in the town website alongside the master plan document. Yeah, we'd probably do appendex separate just for size anyways. Um, so we could do all of the survey results. The workshop results are a little more messy because as you remember it was more conversations. So what I have is notes from our staff. Uh so that's why you see those summaries in the introduction for that I think is that's as in-depth as we can go for those along with the pictures that are there of the workshops. Um but yeah we could do survey results, we could do writeins from our farmers market activity and presentations if that's helpful. What does everybody else think? Shantel,

I like the idea of having it publicly available but housed separately just cuz the document's so pretty to mess with it. Biona. Yeah, just a general um comment about Yeah, I think a summary, keep it concise, obviously outline, you know, all the things that were done because there was so much, but um yeah, getting into, you know, granular detail is definitely not needed and yeah, will make the appendix be so very long. So, Emory I would like to have it included in some way for sure. People who attended the first farmers market where we all like, you know, put our little blibs up there, it's important for them to to I feel like be acknowledged that they that was part of this whole process. So, I think however you want to do it, but acknowledging that anyone who participated was, you know, part of this process. Yeah. For sure. Yeah, for that we have that list of everything that was written out. So that would be easy to incorporate. So Sarah, what are you thinking for turnaround time for the planning board meeting? Mhm. This would be contingent on a vote here tonight, I believe. But if the committee would like to see this forward to the planning board, uh we will need until Friday for these edits. Okay,

I agree. You need to take time for sure. Um because there was a lot of ground covered. Um, I was, and this is no comment on CMRPC or any anybody or anything in general, just I was going to try and share it sooner so the board could have time to really um review. So, I'm a little bit concerned about um having it on Friday and then meeting on Monday, but um I'm happy to do whatever the group would like to do. What we could do is send the planning board a condensed list of the changes from the Excel and the most recent drafts we have. Okay. Um I could do that tomorrow. Okay. Yeah. I think just like something so that they can see, you know, what what's been going on. Um because we you know might run into a situation where you know they might you know oh I'm seeing this for the first time and I need more time to really absorb this information and what was discussed etc. Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. Personally, I would prefer to, of course, I've been working on this all along, so that this is not something none of this is gonna be new to me, but I would like to see the the the completed version with all the with all the changes made and have a chance to review that. But for me, if I saw it on Friday, I have that would that would give me enough time to review it before Monday. But that's just me. I I I I think the other board members would uh uh would appreciate more time to review. And a little bit of a concern of mine is if

they're reviewing something that is not it doesn't incorporate all the changes then reviewing that and and and side by side reviewing that with a list of changes. It's a little bit more awkward. Although for the most part the changes we've talked about aren't that what I want the word I want to use significant in terms of changing the changing the message that that's being conveyed or ch changing what we're talking about in any significant way. A lot of those small typos and so on you know that's kind of a non-issue. So perhaps for most of the planning board, you know, having an early you having having the May 8th draft along with a list of changes might be helpful, Marie. So I agree with Dave. I don't know that we have to given all the time that we've put into this, you know, rush this through at the end. Um, and per what is online, the next planning board meeting is July 22nd, but perhaps there's something between now and then. Um, so I'm not sure what date you're referencing. Uh, but I would I would vote for, you know, holding back a week if we have to just to make sure that everyone sees this and everyone feels comfortable, you know, with it. That's Yeah, I think that that's totally fine. The next planning board meeting is the 23rd and the one after that is July 14th. Yeah. just didn't doesn't indicate that

on the on our website. So, I'm just looking at that. Yeah. The next after after the 23rd, a week from today, the we're then one, two, three weeks later for the planning board on the 14th. And I I could be a little bit more comfortable with giving giving the planning board that much more time to review the document. It does push us back at past June 30th and I don't recall whether June 30th is a significant date in terms of CMRPC's involvement here. Yes, I turn into a pumpkin a little bit. So if we want to push it back to July, I would have to talk to my colleagues about the feasibility of that. Yeah. But we are I mean what we are I think what we are suggesting is having the complete updated document available maybe within one week. So you guys, you Sarah, you said you could you you you could expect to have all the updates done by Friday this week. So the only question then would be well you know what more would you guys have to do with a document as a result of any planning board review? I suppose the planning board would have possibly have some comments or suggestions to make. So, I don't really know how that's going to go. I think that was our idea to have it be

a week before July there in case there are any approval with changes. Yeah. So, and an Marie, your hand is up. So, just to I I would like to have the planning board have an opportunity to like weigh in on this. Um, and sorry, based on the website, your next meeting is July 22nd. So, can you just confirm when your next you have two meetings before that? That July 22nd meeting is a hazard mitigation committee meeting. It's um Okay. So like nothing. So So June 29th is like the one that's on the website. And so what what are the next ones? So the next one is the 23rd, so a week from today. And then the following uh meeting is July 14th for regular planning board meeting. That hazard mitigation posting is that like it lives under planning board. We have that posted. It's a separate thing that we're doing. um like that's all that's on there. So, yeah. Okay. Yeah, we're we're we have to post by um Wednesday of this week in light of the um Junth holiday. So, we haven't we're almost ready to post, but um we haven't done it yet. Colleen, so the plan if if we do it where the planning board reviews it on the 23rd and in all likelihood that they're going to want more time to review it after that. Is it possible to do a joint zoom meeting with just planning board and master plan on June 30th? Um where they just can weigh in more CMRPCs there and it keeps the focus just on that just to

keep us on a tighter time frame for CMRPC and then that gets the planning board two cracks at it. Is that enough or is that is that too much of a condensed time frame? So our assumption on team RPC is that the planning board shouldn't be surprised by this document as they've had the public comment period and we're hoping that this committee has been in conversation with the boards that should be um collaborating on this master plan as the process has gone along. So we're hoping that the document isn't a complete surprise next week. Um I I agree with you, but I I've also uh seen it go the way of Fiona saying that people were are going to want more time and they're going to want to weigh in on it and it might be not a complete surprise, but not they might not be as up to speed as um maybe we hope, but is it is it feasible to think that that we could if we did the 23rd and the 30th because once we lose you that that's that's tough. Sue, I like Colleen's idea. Um, we also have a new planning board member that just came on, so he's not familiar with this at all. So, I I'm sure that that's going to hold up the planning board somewhat. I I um I'm happy to So Sarah, I don't know what your thoughts on on this are, but you know, CMRPC's involvement ter terminates on the 30th. Um I can take over what needs to be done to update the document based on that.

And if there's if anything else comes out um after the fact, you know, I can have a meeting um set up, you know, independently run by myself and you know, we can do a joint meeting of the planning board and the master plan working group on the 14th of July to talk through what, you know, if the planning board has anything extra and I can just incorporate the edits and take over the role of CMRPC, I guess. Um, I don't know if that's like a proprietary issue or or what, but I can just do it. I have no problem doing it. Definitely not a proprietary issue as the plan will be yours, but I'll just have to um talk to my people. We could potentially something work in July, but I can't say that personally now. Yeah, I I don't think I you know I don't want to put pressure on you bec um to be you know having having to be in um involved if it's going to cause a problem but yeah like I'm I am I've done many master plans in my life and I have I'm more than happy to just pick up where need where needed and make sure that all the comments are accounted for and whatnot after the fact. It sounds to me like we can proceed with our plan to bring this to the planning board one week from tonight. Give the planning board some early early access to the documents that are available that can be made available tomorrow. expecting by the end of the week to have the updated documents available for review. And depending on what the planning board is willing to do, the planning board may be a may be willing to say, "This looks good to us. Let's uh let's approve it."

or it may need to uh you know the planning board may want to take more time to review which could we could we could give the planning board the choice of running it through the end of June doing something at the end of June or running into July. So it's it's kind of worthwhile to get a better sense of how we would have to handle it if it does run into July. But it's a I think we can be optimistic to the point of saying uh bring it to the planning board on the 23rd and then uh take it from there depending on the planning board's action. Does everybody else feel comfortable with that? I' I'd say it's it's it's less than ideal. I'd like for the the planning board to have more time to review it, but given the schedule and funding constraints, I I think this is workable. And we, you know, like I said, we just want, you know, we we do need to be prepared for the possibility that it will overflow into July and figure out how to deal with that. Yeah. and and we're posting the meeting on Monday as a joint meeting of the master plan working group and the planning board um y as we discussed before just so to allow the working group the opportunity to explain um the reasoning for things and changes um as well as answer questions and generally kind of provide support. So I think that will also help. Okay, Lindsay. So, I'm sorry.

So, is there where is there a joint meeting that is it what date are we talking about? Sure. So, this meetings. Yeah. So, it was floated um at the last meeting to do a joint meeting of the master plan working group and the planning board when the plan is before the you know before the planning board for approval. So that allows the working group to be able to answer questions and kind of provide support. So we were going to post it as a as a joint meeting of both groups. And then do we have a date yet or that's what we're trying to work on right now? That it would be Monday the 23rd because that's okay. All right. Thank you. All right. And Marie, yeah, that was my question as well. like I wasn't sure if do we all know this or was it planned before? Yeah, we did talk about this at our previous meeting. Okay. So, it's going to be Monday. This this committee will be there at the planning board meeting as well if we want to. Yes. Yeah. And it's it's hybrid. So, um you you can come in person or or via Zoom. Um whatever works. I I could insist that you all come in person so we actually have some an audience on our meeting room. Landing board meetings typically have very few if any in-person attendees but no real realistically of course it's entirely up to you to attend via Zoom or in person. All right. So, I think we're all set with a plan to move forward through the planning board.

Yes. So, I'll get the doc. So, Sarah will provide me with a kind of shorthand tomorrow. I will follow up with the planning board, explain what's going on, and say, you know, the few the full document is forthcoming at the end of the week. Just keep an eye out for that. we can talk through it more on Monday and then if the board wants more time I can take over from for CMRPC after that and we can take you know however long we need to make sure that the document reflects what everybody wants to see is my understanding but okay Marie your hand is up just confirming like we'll all get a invite to this meeting on Monday Yes. Okay. So, I think that takes care of that item on our agenda. Our agenda does have under next steps an item about presenting to fall town meeting. Is there anything we need to do talk about for that right now? I don't I don't think so, Dave. I think the only thing that I will say is that you know just so everyone's on the same page and you know mass general law planning board is the approving entity so it is it's kind of weird because it's a it's it's in effect upon planning board approval. So town meeting it's just more of you know an additional step that the town is taking um in the interest of you know transparency and full approval which is a great thing and I think we should do it but I just do want to caution that if you know we'll need to push the plan out a lot more continue to advertise it through falls and um to make sure that you know people who are attending town meeting are aware of everything that's been going on um and also and if there's any comments that would come out of that. I don't think

that there would be because it's not really the type of form town meeting is. Um it would they would need to be considered in the implementation phase of the plan. So I just want everyone to be you know aware of that fact. Okay. And speaking of implementation phases, we've not really talked a lot about implementation. We've we've we have an implementation matrix which we've discussed a little bit in the in this group. Um the implement implementation matrix includes an identification of who's going to be responsible for the action item a sense of priority and timing and cost and available resources. And that basically as is as it is today is what's going to be included into the master plan document. And that will form the basis for what we do after the plan has been approved to go about implementing the plan. Once the plan is approved, my understanding is it is the planning board's plan and it will be up to the planning board to follow up on implementation which the plan suggests that we might put together an implementation team. We might uh one one of the action items talks about assessing available resources for implementation, but the master plan working group isn't involved at that point unless we've put together an implementation team. And maybe some of you want to be on it, but we have you we haven't really begun to seriously think about how we're going to follow up an implementation. And obviously we're not going to spend any time on that this evening, but that

will be there will be some sort of followup on that. So unless anybody has any other thoughts on that, our agenda does have a couple of action items. First of which is to approve the minutes of the May 14th meeting. So moved. Seconded. moved and second and any discussion of the motion hearing none. Mr. Carol [Applause] I Carol's I Miss Duckworth I Miss Fox I abstain from voting. Miss Foley fully I Miss George I need to abstain too. Mr. H. Hi, Miss Gimble. Hi, Mr. Robbins. Votes. I Miss Robbins. I Miss Roy. I. All right. I declare the motion carried by a vote of a eight in favor, none against, and two abstensions. Next action item is a vote to approve the master plan and implementation matrix with the recommended changes that being the changes that we discussed during the meeting tonight. So moved. Seconded. Moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Mr. Carol I. Miss Duckworth. Hi. Miss Fox. Hi. Miss Foley. Hi. Miss George. Hi. Mr. Hoo. Hi. Miss Kimbo. Hi. Mr. Robbins. Votes. I Miss Robbins. I. And Miss Roy. I.

Motion carried unanimously. The plan is approved as it will be amended per our discussion. One more action item. We will plan vote to submit master plan and implementation matrix with recommended changes for planning board approval. So moved. All moved. Seconded. Moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Bob I. Victoria. I. Lindsay I. and Marie. Hi, Deborah. Hi, Brian. Hi, Shantel. I Dave votes I. Sue I. And Colleen I. Thank you. Motion carried unanimously. That concludes our action item agenda. Our next agenda item is public input. If if anybody should happen to have an item that qualifies as public input that's not otherwise on the agenda for this evening, now would be the time to raise your hand and offer your public input. I don't see any hands raised. We have no meeting attendees. So I will assume that that concludes that. Any other items which may lawfully come before the working group? I'm not aware of any. So it might be time for a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Bob. Yes. I Victoria. Hi. Lindsay. Hi. Henry. Hi. Deborah. Hi. Brian. I. Chantel. I. Dave

votes. I Sue. I. Colleen. I. Motion carried unanimously. We are adjourned.