Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Call this Monday, January 12th, 2026 meeting of the Grafton Planning Board to order. We're all in the room, so we don't need a roll call. This is where we have a chance for public input. If anyone wants to talk about something that's in our purview that is not otherwise on the agenda, uh this is the time to raise your hand on the wire or in the room.

We have no attendees on Zoom, no hands raised. Well, I guess we're not going to have any public input on that. It appears we have no action items. Um, we do have a discussion item, the um drafts of changes to the subdivision rules and regulations.

Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, the board may recall that There was a discussion about the updates to the rules and regulations at the last meeting. Um the board decided to continue the discussion to this meeting to kind of unpack some of the changes. Also, the file that was uploaded didn't um the PDF version didn't show the the comments uh in a very understandable way. So, we uploaded the word document that has all of the um commentary that's been going on between staff, the VHB consulting team, um myself, and uh board members who provided feedback. So honestly the the I think the goal of this meeting is to just review the changes that have been made over the past two years um in regarding implementing um low impact development principles and deciding um your comfort level with the changes and if you how how you'd like to proceed. I believe there was one comment in particular that the board wanted to discuss a little bit more regarding the common driveways and how many units they're serving. So that'll probably take up most of the discussion I would think. Um but just to further recap since the last meeting there was I there was a few comments made. Um Mr. Chair yourself and Mr. Robbins suggested adding um definitions for flexible development, removing references to cluster using consistent language um and some kind of um kind of more like administrative um items like that. So I did incorporate those changes uh and I uploaded them to the meeting materials. Uh, and I I will um I don't know how the board wants to

proceed. There's a couple of comments that we did receive from the public regarding updates to the regs that are um related but not in the scope for uh VHB's contract. So, I'm not sure if the board wants to talk about how the board wants to do that. if we want to address the commentary from BHB and then talk about the tree um and invasive species commentary in the letters or um I think that's probably the best and that's my recommendation because we are contracted with VHB to finish this work and we have a little bit more time and flexibility to address the um edits to

Yeah. My my only concern is when was the last time that appendix that talks about plantings uh modified? I don't think you're going to find out. I think it's the same one that Peter Low put in when I started or be at the time I started on the board. Uh and I can remember more than once that we have discussed or not not we but

Mhm. planning board uh cycles have said, you know, we really need to update that uh section and uh someone says, "Yeah, we'll get on that." And now it's 30 years. And uh so I'm a little that makes me a little leerary of just saying we'll take care of it later. Uh we we change these rules every decade or so whether we need to or not. Um yeah. Well, I'm not sure it's quite that often. Yeah. So, um

my my only comment is a little different than you on that, Bob, is the subdivision rules we can change whenever we want effectively. Like we can have the ability the ability to to vote changes. So I think is my opinion is we don't drop the the tree stuff. We don't push it off but we decouple it from the VHP update. So we can do the VHB update. We can vote on the VHB up, you know, this update with the lid and then we can have that as a separate update that we still just immediately work on.

But I but that's what I've been promised before. That's my problem. Um, but anyway, the the I'm thinking, my thought was, let's take out talking about specific species or even specific regulations and just say we don't want invasive species and let people fight it out when the time comes or up until the time that we get back to work that out. Um, Mhm.

might might be as good as I'm told that um I'm told by a former planning board member who knows something about plants that um this is actually a pretty controversial subject. Mhm. We have a lovely cousa tree in the backyard and she says that's from you know foreign material probably is invasive. Um, right. Don't Don't you I wonder about the cherry trees along the uh in Washington. They're from Japan.

You know, this is a not an easy subject. Mr. Chair, if I may, so just to Justin's point and yours,

this topic is is complicated and how we want to address it is we're going to need to flush it out a little bit more. um if you know I was able to confirm. I I was under the impression that there needed to be some sort of procurement to maybe hire a certified arborist or a horiculturist or a landscape architect or somebody in this world that kind of knows knows the most current standards um etc. and and and go through you know attack it that way. Um we don't need to follow um all of the um standard 30B requirements for that type of work. we can do a request for um information or quotes. That that would be my that that would be my recommendation. Um especially if we want to update the table. I mean I I'm think I don't you know personally have a a problem with just removing the table, but sometimes it sometimes it's good to provide guidance for developers about what a particular community is looking for, what type of species that they want to see. Um, so it's just it it's definitely going to involve additional research and followup which we can't

although one of the things we look for was salt tolerant. Um, and then the other uh that's been discussed is invasive. if we just just say we don't like these you know those those two categories uh and then when the no when we can and when we feel like it I if it's controversial we may find experts consultants who have different opinions about it and uh

yeah my thought first of all on the LI stuff. I'm comfortable with everything as presented. So that that's point point one. I'm I'm I'm happy with the way it looks. I I read all the way through it and reviewed all the comments and everything and I'm happy with that as it stands. I think we can move forward with that. I tend to think that we don't need that comprehensive list of tree species in the subdivision rules. I think kind of go along with with you the other comments here that we can say a little bit about it. Yeah, we can we can you know I think we can we we can look at aside from that list of tree species

which we can deal with that outside of the rules and regulations. But we you know we just need to say and enough and this is you know this is perhaps the slightly tricky part of it is looking looking at you know the the various elements that our commenters have pointed to

and uh you know re revise the rules eliminate that table entirely. If we needed to have a table like that, we we we could have and I'm not sure we even need that ultimately. You know, I think like Bob says, we can we can we can be much more generalized about what we say we want. And outside the outside the rules and regulations, there can be discussions about specific specific species.

So, I would just look at set that table aside entirely. look at the other elements that are mentioned, you know, like references to ANC standards and whatever else, and just just make sure there's just enough in there that covers the topic in a way that's not unnecessarily specific, not unnecessarily rigid, not problematic. and

you know that that's and that's something I I don't advocate doing that for this specific revision the LI revision of the rules and regs. I think that's probably something that we can tackle uh as a subsequent revision later this year. I think we we we do need to, you know, keeping in mind Bob's comment, you know, we uh we did the revision about four years ago and we'd been putting that off for quite a while. Um you the LA the last revision prior to that was 2009 and so yeah it uh yeah after several years of the board saying we got to revise those rules. Yeah, I basically I basically I basically sat down and start and and just t started tackling that

and you know very you know we got the board involved but really that was kind of you know kind of an initiative that we finally said enough is enough but we got to do it. Yeah. Yeah. by by doing something like what I said, you know, put in not not uh something like uh well partly to the satisfaction of the board but but uh not non-invasive, salt salt-free and otherwise uh as the board um may find. The point is having something in the rules that gives you a handle when

these folks come in and say they shouldn't be putting those in. We can say, "Yeah, that's within our Yeah. You want you want to say just enough to to make it clear the the criteria that we'll be that we would be evaluating." Yeah. But also that we will be looking at that as part of what we do. I do have one further comment. I'll let the other members speak if they have if they have anything to add before I go. Go ahead.

Okay. The only thought I have to on doing just that simple word moving the table is does any does any other communities in Worcester County at least or central Mass in general say have similar in their subdivision rules? And if so, does any of them have any problems with with utilizing that in some way that we might want to look at trying to find a solution for for ourselves before we just put it in? Before we enact that as a change,

before we even do what we were talking about about taking taking out what's there and just putting a little bit in to start with. I was thinking as part of the process of putting that in just to kind of check to see, hey, does anyone else have this kind of wording? Maybe there's wording that's better than what we might put in. Maybe community had had a problem and they changed their wording to fix the problem. Those kind of things could be useful to know. Yeah, that's kind of yeah, my thoughts in general about doing things like this are I don't want to reinvent the wheel if I can find a perfectly good wheel. So as as part of looking at looking at this, I would look to other communities to see how they've dealt with the question.

Y does that mean we leave it as it is for now? Yeah. I think for the LI update. Yes, I think yeah, I I I I would like to complete the LI update without throwing anything else into it today or at this point, but I would like I would like us to sort of be committed to tackling this as a as a as a topic and not putting it off indefinitely.

So, what I can do is Yeah. So, we can um I I'll put on uh you know, I'll start doing the research in the background, looking at what other communities are doing um and seeing how they're addressing the language um to make a couple of calls and just um follow up on some of the references because I I I agree. I mean, I think if you can minimize the amount of um like if you keep the table, it's always going to need to be reviewed because because species apparently, you know, species become can become invasive when they once weren't. Um

so it's always going to need um constant kind of well not constant monitoring but regular review if we can reference you know DCRS or mass DPS's trusted references instead of um you know again trying to like just trying to kind of create something from scratch. I think that that's wise. So why don't I'll I'll do some background research followup pull some sources together. um speak speak to probably speak to the you know open space and rec committee and sustainable graft and a few other groups out there and get some some buy in and and and then we can maybe shoot for late spring or talking about again.

Is there anybody who maintains a current list of the of the either invasive or desirable plants that could be referenced to? No. Could you say in the bylaw, you know, please operate by referencing this list that's maintained by this environmental association? If you read the correspondence, I think they've cited standards. So, can the Could it just reference a list that is kept current rather than the law have been listed out? Yes. And I think that that Yeah, my that was my kind of early long-winded way of saying we should just do that. So, we're I support that. Yeah. Yeah. That's one of one of my first thoughts is I'd rather not have a list like that in the subdivision rules, right?

I'd rather I'd rather reference other sources, other sources which may change from year to year, but will provide information that's current at the time a subdivision is approved. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I I agree. I think that's that's the best way to do it. Yeah. I know this the the state maintains a list of invasive species. Mhm. I've forgotten whether his was state or or federal or the two both of them. They were they were referenced in in both letters that the the community had had supplied. Is is it was it state or was it federal? I

I don't I don't remember this. Yeah. But I I think that makes a lot of sense. I'm comfortable with the revisions to the rest of the document um that that have been made. So I I I support that completely and and I think we should I I don't think we can take it out completely. We have to have some kind of language that gives gives people some guidance. A perfect example is what we had with TUS, you know, at one of our just recent previous meetings. They came with things that they thought were perfectly allowable um you know plantings and you know there was a comment from the from the the community that those happened to be invasive and they were very comfortable shifting to another

even if we didn't have a rule that absolutely said that particular species as they keep inventing these species. Absolutely. They're going to change. They're going to change monthly. So, you can't let's rely on someone that that's that's, you know, from, you know, that's experts in the industry. And then even if it's not invasive species, there's invasive pests that can damage the things that come out brand new. This can change every week. You said pests. We should put outlaw pests in the air. That's Yeah. No pest allowed on your property. Yeah. Including um mosquitoes. Including mosquitoes. Oh, now we get into spraying.

No, no pesticide either. No, no pest, no pesticide. Can Can we outlaw blackflies right after with the mosquitoes? Anyway, um I do know that there's a state list of invasive species. I've looked it up. I couldn't I couldn't point you to it right now, but I do know there is one from the state. Yes, let's see. May not be the only good point by Justin. Let's see what other people are doing. Come up with the best possible thing to put in that. But we have to have some guidance for the community. Yeah. And I just want us to to to be perhaps unnecessarily repetitive. I this is this is a topic we need to tackle and I don't think we want to put it off indefinitely. We need basically we need to have make ourselves a commitment to address this specific topic.

Yes. Sooner rather than later to I I hereby assign you the responsibility to make that happen immediately if not sooner. To exactly that point, one thing we could do which is kind of administrative but still just to say it out is under staff report we can or on the agenda in some way list topics that we are actively paying attention to and looking at that are not projects that are that are in progress. So they could be there every time just like the reports from uh CMRPC and yeah I think the select board had adopted that around the time Evans started I think. Mhm. Okay. Yeah, you can do that.

So, does anybody have anything in the lid draft that they're concerned about? I have one one thing might just be that I can't read those damn uh documents correctly. I can't I can't tell for sure because I thought I still found the planning board is strongly advised or or encouraged to do a couple of things. And I think I mentioned no, this is our rules. If if the town passes a bylaw that says the planning board is strongly encouraged to do something, that's fine. The town is telling us something. But this is the planning board telling itself encou this planning board encouraging whatever planning board might come along. And I don't think that we're making a rule about it. Uh I

I Yes. I Yeah. I I I think there's at least a couple of places and if they're in there when it comes time to vote, I'm going to vote no. Okay. remember. Do you know where those are specifically? Because I don't making rules. Yes, I see. Um I just looked 4.1.2. Looks like there was some of it was moved. I think it was it was in things that were moved and section 2.7 taken out. Anyway, that you you can just take note of that for uh Okay. Okay. You're going to advertise, right?

Yes. Yes, we're going to advertise for a public hearing. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was comfortable with the language before obviously we do that. Um I think that I think that language was the red line is still in the document, but I I think that that language is removed. I didn't see anything that said which colors were which. So yes, strongly these in once possible move and I it was hard to distinguish looking in the documents which one was which. You know there's two on our agenda, right? And I was the file names didn't Yes, there's been you know you got to you got to you know people like me you got you got to do a lot of helping. Yes.

Searching for the word strongly. There's nothing that is saying the planning board should look for encouraged. Okay, I'll look for encouraged. There are some places where we encourage people. Oh, we encourage people to come in and talk to us ahead of time. I've seen the it's gone now, right? I wish a lot more people looking at the full markup. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I don't use Word on my tablet too often. So I I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing here. I don't use Word very often. Um period.

So we'll see the So there's a few there was a few players here. So VHB had the project manager that was involved as well as this um her colleague myself and others. So I think if you rightclick you should be able to see who did or on the sidebar like the comment sidebar that comes up if you click on the edit it shows you who did it. Um obviously you know you're not going to know all these people from BHB but just I see yeah 2.6 looks like it's active there while each development proving board is encouraged to wave standards. Yeah. And then

the planning board is encouraged. No, this is the planning board saying the rules are Would you be comfortable with just to ask it the planning board may wave standards for uh I think that we can I think I think we can wave our rules in general can't we? Yes. So it's not necessary to say it there and I wouldn't encourage Yeah. inviting. I think that language is copied from the zoning bylaw. Yes. And in that place that's fine. Yep.

It may or may not be fine, but but it's it it's not wrong there. Okay. So, I'll I'll Do we have anything else? Do we need No, I I don't believe so. in regarding the lid updates. No, I think just there was a summary of um revisions that at the end of the document. Oh my goodness. Okay. Where is that? Um if the board if there was anything there that the board wanted to flag or change. It seems like everybody is is comfortable. I think you're going to make a document a final

that people for to inform people for our hearing including us and uh do do what it what is appropriate so that people can including us can see what we're doing. Summary of changes. It does say in 2.6 Six updated to encourage waiverss for standards curbing ro with sidewalks, drainage, common driveways. No. So, if we're not adding that, that will need to be changed. And it also says 2025 updates. At this point, we're 2026 updates. Yes. Well, these were done in 2025, but including my turn around, but yes, the document.

They're not enacted in 2025 is my thought. Yes. Do we need a vote? Can I Mr. Can I just clarify what what are we doing with the language under 2.6? Are we taking are we taking it out because it's repetitive with the zoning bylaw? I just I just need to know. Seems the planning board is not going to encourage the planning board. Take out when the planning board is encouraging the planning board. If the zoning wants to say something, let the zoning say it. I understand that. But

and I understand that language needs to be changed, but there's a reference to waivers specifically. Do are am I removing that entirely? I mean, I know the encouraged. I I understand that part. But if we can wave anything, why do we have to say we can wave something. If you wanted to make it more clear, you know, we don't have to do that. I'm just confirming what I need to do for the next time.

Yeah. I'm not quite sure how best, if at all, to repeat in the subdivision rules and regulations what the zoning bylaw says about what the planning board should do. And I think the Bob's point here is well taken that we already the board has the authority to wave anything. Correct. Mhm.

It's the principle of not repeating something from the law on a step down so that when the law changes, then you got to notice and come back and change yours. You use one reference. You know, you you it's stated in one place. You can say the planning board's got to follow what the law says at the top.

Why can't you just say that the planning board may wave standards for curbing right away? I mean, it doesn't mean we have to. I mean, just like every decision that we make, we might have to do that. Yeah. I that's inviting it. And I don't think so. So, do you want her to delete it all out or do you want her to change you do you want to change the language? No, I I don't I don't think everything unfollows. We may um So, do you want to take out the Do you want to take out the sentence or do you want to modify the language?

She just needs some guidance. I can draft something with both and and have have something mocked up so that the board can see and then if we just want to nyx it during the hearing that's fine. If we're going to decide to advertise and publish, we need to know what you publish to go with the advertisement. Yeah. All proposals that are subject to waved standards are subject to review and approval. We don't need that. Compliance all plans relate to not requiring approval shall conform in all respects to the provisions of these rules and regulations unless otherwise authorized by the planning board. Period. See what I'm saying?

Mhm. 2.6. I think you can end. Do we have notes on why we thought this was needed to be added?

As part of the scope of BHB's work, they are doing an overview of um uh the zoning bylaw as well. And we wanted to make sure that in all applicable areas, both of those documents were talking to each other where they needed to. So there is there you know as was mentioned there is some language that's a bit it's repetitive between the two but it's to kind of underscore the shared goal of implementing lid.

Am I looking at this word change right that really the red underlined was partially in place before and it just got rewarded and something's removed entirely. Is that what I'm seeing? The the red is the initial changes that were made. Those were additions and then the blue is changes changes to that. Yes. Yes. The uh red line is original red line is always red. The entire clauses the set of clauses about starting with all proposals that are subject to wave standards are subject to review by the department but that's added that wasn't there before. That's also the very

the original subject and then moving on the language starting with while each development proposal is unique. Um going to the end of the list of sections to be waved that is was not in the previous subdivision rules and it was added as basically a cut and paste copy and paste from the zoning bylaw. And then some of the within that the uh the highlighted in blue was corrections to what was lifted out of the zoning bylaw. Right. Because the zoning bylaw the list of sections that the zoning bylaw suggests we waved is out of date.

Yes. And we caught that over the caught that. Do we agree start with while each development and go to the end of that what we're looking at and remove it? Yeah, I think that would be the simplest fix here is remove it. I can't make motions, but uh make it the number one. I mean, I get I get the spirit of trying to have it in two places, but it seems like you could just stop at the end of subdivision. Having two places is always perpetually problem. I think it's useful to still say subject review and approval by the fire department though just to

Well, that part Yeah, that part I want to keep. Well, of course, the fact that it's got a it comes to the proposal comes to us and we send it to the fire department and if the fire department comes back and says, "I'm not happy," we say, "Change it." Yeah, I think it still is beneficial to call it out here for the fire department, but beyond that, I I'm okay with moving. Isn't that true though for everybody? The building inspector. Well, I wouldn't want a Frank down the street. I wouldn't want a Frank in Milbury to tell us.

Yeah. No. Um I think if anything a motivation for specifically referencing the fire department here is that uh historically fire has not always weighed in when we wanted them to. They should weigh in as part of their initial review of the application. It's important for the fire department to continue to pay attention to this. So, because the fire department will object to waving standards for things like the roadway widths, right?

And so, you want I think it's there's an emphasis here that calls for the fire department to be continually, you know, involved with being aware of and and having a say on, you know, any revisions to the plans. Okay. Yep. I agree. So, I don't I think it's in a way it's redundant because we have a whole list of departments that are required to review and comment on the plans when they come in. But, uh the I think the reason that the fire department often didn't give us much was because of the staffing of the fire department. That has now changed.

Yes. I think that we had a part-time you know, it's not voluntary, but you know, had a part-time chief and that was the end of it. Um, and now we have two, we're starting to talk about on firefighters in in the building. I think it's fair to say that currently at least and for the foreseeable future, fire is going to be capable of being much more involved in plan review than they have in the past. But, you know, everybody else is too. I don't care whether but it just seems Yeah.

I think my my my kind of two cents on that is everybody has this has a decent first crack at an application. But if there's a revision made that would require us to wave or they ask us can we wave this because it'll make the design simpler. The act of waving the standards has a greater impact on fire than it does on most other departments that would have a public impact. I I I I you know I always say when we we're doing changes I say now did the highway department or whoever you do but

10 years from now when we when we make the next update to this in my walker in my wheelchair I'll be uh well I I don't care about that. Um, one other comment relative to the subdivision rules encouraging the planning board to wave standards is that the context for that in as I said as we've established that comes from the zoning bylaw in perhaps important context in the zoning bylaw

is that the planning board is strongly encouraged to wave sections of the subdivision rules in the interests of good design if it determines that adequate access will be provided to all lots in the development by ways that will be safe and convenient for travel. Now, that doesn't change. That's that's part of the zoning bylaw and that's giving some direction to the planning board. Um, okay.

A specific, you know, and and because that's in the zoning bylaw, I don't I don't I don't think we any of us would suggest repeating that part of it in the subdivision rules. We could up we should be updating the zoning bylaw to have an accurate list of the specific sections of the subdivision rules. But that's that's for the zoning bylaw, not for the subdivision rules. But then when we change the rules, you got to change the zoning bylaw. in fact may we may we may prefer in a in a zoning bylaw update not to try to refer to specific sections of the subdivision

but also if the zoning bylaw only encourages us it has no effect I mean you know uh they can say but they encourage you and I say not this you know I can't see it this time and that's you know when you go to court and say They didn't follow the bylaw. The bylaw encouraged them to give me what I want. How's that how's that going to stand up? Okay, we were encouraged, but we we still we we decide whether to respond to that encouragement and or how we respond. Yeah. So why does it how much? Never mind. Yeah. Do we need anything? That's a debate for the zone.

Yes, I guess we do. Yeah. So this specific starting with which while each development proposals you the planning board is encouraged to wave standards blah blah blah to the end of the paragraph. We move we delete that from the draft. Okay. Is everyone in agreement? Do we need a vote? We don't need a vote. H agreed. No vote needed in my mind. Is there anything else? Do you need a vote to put this forward? Yes, I we probably need a vote to put this forward. Um I did hold a hearing and proceed.

I did not put that on the agenda specifically for under action items. My apologies. Can't we still do that with the is this discussion and this is this was our discussion fully within our purview and it's all and it's gonna something that comes back to us and gets public discussion in a later date. I feel it is okay to vote on this now. Yeah. Yeah. Because the the vote that counts is after the hearing. And and there'll be an action item on that one. After you're right after the hearing, the board will out sooner or later the board will vote to adopt the revised rules and regulations. Mhm.

So at which point that will be published through the town clerk's office after which it becomes effective and we'll figure out what the process is if something comes up in the public hearing. Yes. That all right. Yes. So, I will move that staff do what they need to do as far as publication and scheduling a hearing for the board to take up the draft as presented and discussed at a future meeting. Second. Moved and second of discussion hearing. None. All in favor?

I opposed. So voted. Um, so much for a short meeting, Linda. Um, bills. We have some bills. Move the board authorize the bills to be paid. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion hearing. None. All in favor? I opposed. So voted unanimously. Staff report.

I am working on closing out. Well, I was closing out 2025 projects and now 2026 is starting. So, um I am just kind of focusing on those types of things as opposed to applications and day-to-day and um that that type of thing. Uh I am doing uh finalizing two requests for proposals. One for the feasibility study at Fischerville Mill to do um get a consultant to conduct a kind of a financial and development feasibility analysis for that site. It's very complicated and it there's a lot of moving parts. So, the goal is to study the study the site and hopefully get some um you know some pre-ermitting due diligence done and then have a developer eventually come in and um utilize that to develop the property. Um there's

it it'd be great to make something happen there, but it belongs to someone who has been trying for a long time to um you know they they they paid for it and um is it not sure about spending public money. So this was a a grant that um Oh, okay. We appli Okay. And isn't it already a accelerated development arsenal? It's accelerated permitting, excuse me. No, it's not 43D. Uh it's a 40R 40R, right?

Um so there's just to to Bob's point and it's been um the owner of the property has been trying very hard, you know, approached the town about what what possibilities there are. We had reached out to the state, had an anformational kind of meeting about, okay, we need to try and get this moving. Um, it was suggested to apply for this through the community onetop. We did and we got it for $100,000. So, now it's developing the RFP for a developer to do the work. So, that's where I'm at. I'm also Yeah, it's it's kind it's I've really been kind of focusing on like gr really grant applications and followup from grant awards that were received. Um I did not I was not able to connect with DPW about um the complete streets application for sidewalks and time. So complete streets is twice a year. This is always another bite of the apple for that one in particular. So I think we'll revisit that. Um you know our current DBW director is is retiring very soon. So he's probably got a lot of a lot on his plate at the moment. So, um kind of in discussions about some, you know, potential opportunities, uh perhaps um state historic funding for um repointing of the um the townhouse to be determined. Um I'm still in talks about that. Um uh we applied to the eco one-stop portal which is onetop but the environmental version for um some assessments some facilities assessments for some town own buildings working on that with um Tracy. So yeah just a lot a lot kind of going on in that regard trying to kind of pivot instead of you know decision writing and meeting with you know kind of the standard day-to-day focusing on on some of the kind of cooler projects. Um I

there's a lot going on. Capital budgeting is coming up. So working on that. Um I have that pretty much done. I just need to submit it to the TA's office. Annual report, we're drafting that. Public records requests minutes. We have a lot going on. Um trying to hire off another office assistant as well. Scheduling interviews for that starting next week. Um really hoping that it works out this time. Um and yeah, just there's just a lot going on, but um I'm happy to answer any questions about anything in particular. Um I also will be going sorry, I also will be applying for a mass trails grant with the Blackstone Valley Heritage Corridor for the bike with the Blackstone bikeway, a feasibility study for the Grafton portion. um there's a lot of um interest in that and they approached me and asked if if you know the town would be interested. I did meet with Evan and um member of the select board um and some other members of the public and seems like a worthwhile endeavor. It's been been trying to get this going for another one that trying to get going for a long long long long time. So um yeah,

where where what's where is this section located in town? So there it's this it's South Grafton. It's this like it's really like the bottom corner. Um let me see if I can So there's that's enough. I don't have to in the vicinity of the canal in Yeah. You know what I mean when I say the canal? Not exactly the former canal 122A over there. Well, okay. Um the canal came down um north of the river. It's north of 122A. Um comes down and it goes down the left side of the Fiserville Mill um

okay um property um under the road and um on down to Farnumsville the water of the Farnum. I think the canal kind of does does the canal kind of join the river past the Farnumsville mill? Yeah, it it never had enough water to succeed. Railroads came. In fact, it's where the railroad runs there is pretty much where the canal Okay. was. Yeah. Um, got it. Oh, the uh assessment CMRPC assessment should have about now arrived. Yes, that I I received that on Friday. Um, so I'm

We voted it on Thursday. Yes. Yes. Yes. So that's um yeah, I I I just need to connect with the TA's office about um the budget, making sure that I I slightly um I was slightly off when I did my budget. I asked for 6,400. The assessment was 65. So Evan, but we're still That's a minor change. Should be fine. $100. You're not going to find that. Yeah, I know. I was I I I emailed him immediately. was like, "Please um make sure that this is updated. We I just got this and so I am aware." Yes. Okay. We're on it. All of the staff report.

Since since the new year, has there been any since the holiday? Has there been anything new with with Pine Street or Upton Street? No. No. The um select board has been in executive session regarding up um 17 and 27 for a while um finalizing um some terms of the purchase and sale. I thought that was already done. Okay. Yep. Moving on. That was my Well, that's my understanding. I I haven't been like I thought that was done in November. If if it's not done, then I'm Yeah, I think that they're still just working through. What I what the what happened at the select board meeting last week was that I got the impression that in executive session they finalized their negotiations.

Okay. They were going to vote on it in in the open session, but there was some discussion about well the public should be able to see what they voted on. So, they're gonna they're going to put out the the final final stuff and then vote on it at probably their next meeting or two. Okay, great. Thank you, Dave. Yeah, I wasn't um Yeah, I wasn't that up to up to speed on it. So, thank you. Um I know I had I have to meeting with Evan um soon and we usually we usually go over everything, but we hadn't had it yet. So, um and nothing on a pine. Okay. No. Anything in correspondence?

Don't think so. Um, reports from planning board representatives on town committees and CMRPC. You were at the meeting. Yeah, I have I have nothing to report on anything else. And Bob and I were both at the CMRPC quarterly meeting and you can tell

where the uh aside from CMRPC business with the topic of discussion was I think it's called vision zero but it's it's basically traffic safety. uh they're you know CMRPC if I understand it right is sort of undertaking a regionwide you traffic safety effort you know you working with the communities to cover I think it's like five different five different traffic safety topics I couldn't I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what they were but

so we had we had kind of an introduction to the the traffic safety issues or the the the goals of the project and and some of the topics that that were going to be likely to be covered. It was partly an information gathering session as I understand it to you to to get more input from the communities and the project will be ongoing. I understand that there will be some additional discussions regional discussions within the various CMRPC regions coming up over the next few months.

Yeah. the U I got the sense I'm not totally clear but I think there's a contract to do a study part of the contract is to get input this is you know the planner's scheme of having breakout sessions where we all come up with our hot ideas like make the wide roads wider so we can have bicycle lanes um uh that ought to easy on George Hill Road. Um, and I happen to point out the the rightway is, but you know, I didn't hear anything I don't remember hearing anything suggested in my breakout uh or in the general session that I haven't heard before and I didn't know the reason why it's the way it is. Um, although I think I think h having to have bicycle inspections that include lights, proper lights for nighttime

would be good. And I don't know that we can require people to wear reflective.

Yeah. Not not to spend excess time on it tonight, but I I just remembered that they emailed out the pres presentation. because the uh sort of the the the thing is kind of the the topic is generally covered by what they're calling a safe system approach which includes safer vehicles like the town has a lot of control over that uh safer speeds, safer roads, postc crash care and safer people. So some of this is just it really isn't all all we can do is education and information for the public. But there are things we can do for safer speeds, safer roads, post post crash care. I was in that breakout group. A lot of what we talked about was getting you when there is a crash and there's a serious injury, getting people to emergency care as quickly as possible.

But I think there's more more to that topic than just that. But uh that was Yeah. Anyway, not to belabor the point, we'll I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this over time. Yeah. But anyway, the point is that we had two people from of Craftton's representatives at the quarterly meeting. Yeah. Which, you know, Bob feels lonely most of the time there at least as far as Yeah. All right. Grafton compatriots. Anybody else have anything? I didn't think so. Any other items which may No, there's nothing that I've decided. Nothing. Um All right. Uh we're not going to extend. Move to adjourn.

Second. Moved and seconded. Not debatable. All in favor? I oppose. So voted unanimously. And we are done. Didn't make the record. Okay. Imagine if there were