Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Our first item on the agenda is an executive session. Do we want to do the roll call before that? We have one member on Zoom. Yeah.

Can we have the roll call? Yes. Mr. Hassinger. I'm here. Mr. Robbins. Present. Mr. Wood.

Present.

Mr. Rack. Present. Mr. Mead. Present.

Ray?

Ray, you're on mute if you're trying to speak, but we're doing the roll call. He may have gone to, did he go to the other meeting? I don't think it's showing.

Go ahead, I can hear you.

Oh, okay. Just stay present for the roll call, please.

Ray, can you tell us that you're present for the roll call?

Okay. Mr. Dallamoli is present, so I think everybody's here.

Roll call complete.

We got everybody. Now I need to... call for a motion moving that the board enter into executive session for the sole purpose of discussing and responding to open meeting law complaints dated may 19 2026 and filed against the planning board and that the board will reconvene its regular meeting after the executive session so moved Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, roll call.

Rock, aye. Wood, aye.

Hassell, aye. Robbins, aye. Teller, aye. Motion carries unanimously. An executive session meeting of the planning board is being convened.

I think that's what you start the executive session with. Uh... Maybe not. I don't remember the procedure.

Is being convened at 7.05 p.m. on June 8, 2026 for the sole purpose of discussing and responding to open meeting law complaints dated May 19, 2026 and filed against the planning board as authorized by Massachusetts general law Chapter 20A, Section 21. Present for this executive session will be myself, Robert Hassinger, Justin Wood, Greg Della Male, Michael Rock, David Robbins, and Ray Mead.

And Christian D'Amelia, presumably.

And Christian D'Amelia, presumably. Christian D'Amelia. Who is the town planner? I didn't say I'm the chair. Justin is the vice chair. Greg is the clerk and Ray is the associate. I think that covers all of that, doesn't it? Yes. Reconvene our regular meeting.

Is recording resumed? Yes, recording is on. Okay, perfect. All right, I move that we authorize the town planner to submit the response as discussed during executive session.

Second. Moved and seconded. You think that's a sufficient motion? Good. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Ray's not voting, so we don't really wait. That's right. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? So voted unanimously. That brings us to public input. This is when anyone who has something to talk to us about that's within our purview and is not otherwise on the agenda has a chance to talk to us. If anybody has something... Now is your turn. Now is your time.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Can everybody hear me? Yeah. My name is Joe Duquette from the law firm of Bowdoch and Dewey. I'm here tonight with... Bob Flynn, who's the applicant for this proposed definitive subdivision plan?

No. I said public comment.

Oh, public comment.

We'll get to you in a moment. A little ways down. Any other public input? Or any public input? Okay. That brings us to reorganizations. I usually like to find out who all the possible candidates are, and then we vote our choice among them rather than somebody jumping in just with an appointment nomination.

Well, as far as chair, where I am vice chair, I'm willing to serve as chair.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

I'd like to, and I know I don't have a nomination here, and I know Justin's been, you know, chairman probably at least three times. Bob, you've been 100 times, and Dave's been 50 times. I personally would like to see Greg Della Moly as chairman, if someone would wanted to make that motion.

Would Greg be willing to serve as chair? Sure.

We have, are there any other nominations?

Technically, no one's nominated me. I just said I'd be willing. Oh, no one nominated you.

Technically. Technically, no one's nominated anybody.

No one's nominated.

There have only been two people who have expressed a willingness to service, Chair.

Chairman shouldn't make nominations. Or shouldn't make motions. Or it's not really a motion. But it's a nomination. I've decided.

Well, I guess I could nominate Greg to serve as chair. You guess you could. Could you?

Well, let's take the guess out of it. You're nominating Greg. Does anyone else want to nominate somebody? Apparently not. So we'll take a vote on.

Great. Is there a second, Mr. Chairman?

It's a nomination. It's not a motion.

You do it differently. It's OK.

Someone needs to write a book on how to do this. It's always something different. Does anyone object to not having a second or want to fix that problem?

I would second the nomination. I do second the nomination.

Not only will you, but you do. You know, the tickets are really worth what they cost. Yeah, but the show's too long. Listen, they need to get their money's worth. All right. We'll take a vote. Everyone's here. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? So voted unanimously. I failed to say... hello to our new member and let him introduce himself. Why don't you do that for just a minute before we... Greetings all.

I'm Michael Bronk. I'm a scientist during the day. I've recently joined the planning board in our latest election. I look forward to serving the town of Grafton, both in the interest of its current residents, its future residents, and the town itself.

You have some other background on town...

I served on the Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Committee, which decided how to handle the mandate to move curbside trash pickup and recycling from its current and prior billing structure to its new enterprise fund structure. Okay.

You want to take charge there? Congratulations. Oh, thank you. Mr. Chair.

All right. I think we can stay in our seats. So then what else do we have to look at? We have Vice Chair.

Vice Chair. Clerk. Representatives to other committees.

Got it. Any nominations for Vice Chair? I would like to nominate Justin Wood. I'll second that.

I'll take it. I'd also be willing to nominate Dave to... bring him back to the petition if he wants it, but it's up to, I'm willing to take it too, but I'm just offering.

I would be just as content not to have one of the positions.

You have one or two others that you have to do. I have a, yeah, I have a few other things that I, like three other committees that chair. Yeah, actually one piece of paper is not enough to list it.

All right, so we have a nomination. Any other nominations? I think you got one.

I think we have exactly one.

All right. We've got a nomination for Justin for vice chair. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Clerk. Moving on to clerk.

Except when I came on the board, I was told that the new person on board usually got to be the clerk. They decided that I'd be better as the representative of CMRPC. So I've never been clerk, and I don't need to be clerk. But the, oh, I'm a regular, I can just, I can make motions. Yeah. Welcome back. How about if I nominate you? You okay on clerk? It's not a, It's really just reading. When there are minutes and there's something to do.

I'll figure it out with guidance from the team.

Yep. All right. We've got a nomination for Michael for clerk. Any other nominations? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Michael for clerk. And what other board representations or committee representations do we have? I know that economic development is one. Bob's got the list. Okay. You have the list.

Oh, I have the list. We need a designated member to CMRPC and then a delegate to CMRPC. The reason, as I mentioned, I've been on CMRPC as the designee of the planning board since the spring of 1991. And I do a lot with it. The way CMRPC works, the first delegate is a member of the planning board. The second delegate comes when you're big enough to have two delegates. The second delegate comes from the board of selectmen. If you have a third delegate, it comes from the planning board. And I'm not sure. I thought that we had a joint appointment for the Alternate there's there's room for an alternate also, but we we Our chart here has the the first two I mentioned so you you need I You might want to consider me for I will nominate Bob as our primary delegate to see my receipt second that All right nominations Didn't say that second delegate can be any qualified, you know a voter in town It doesn't have to be a planning board member and that's likewise true of the delegate or delegates that the select board nominates I would be happy to serve as the alternate delegate for the CMR PC.

Well, let's get the designated

We're doing two of the. Well, I think we start with start with the planning board representative. So I heard a nomination for Bob. All in favor. Aye. All opposed. All right, Bob remains on CMRPC for the to set the record. And then we've got what? What else is on the list there, Bob? CMRPC.

And I have been the alternate for the past year. Mike has volunteered to be the alternate for the coming year, and I would be more than delighted to allow Mike to not cling to my position there.

The annual meeting is on Thursday. I don't think it's going to get connected, although we could if you wanted to.

I'll be out of town on Thursday. I'll be out of town on Thursday. Well, that solves that problem.

The quarterly meetings are generally about every three months, the second Thursday. And that's another... Those quarterly meetings are another reason why I would be less than ideal as the alternate because I have another committee that meets on the second Thursday of every month for the next probably year and a half.

So, Michael, am I hearing that you're willing, but you just maybe you can't make the next one?

I would be unable to attend the first meeting. The rest of them I can make.

And so did somebody have a nomination for Michael?

Yes.

Okay. All right. So any other nominations? All right. Hearing none, all in favor of Michael? Aye. All opposed? All right, Michael for alternate CMRPC.

Open Space and Recreation Committee, designate a member.

I nominate Dave to continue as our designate.

Second. Any other nominations? All right, all in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Dave remains. member designated member to community preservation committee that has been me since I joined the board and I'm willing to continue I'll nominate Justin all right any other nominations well I'll second the motion for what it's worth second all in favor aye all opposed okay member to the Grafton Center study committee now The rest of them have heard the story. As part of, I think, what came out or went into the previous master plan, when I was chair, I named a committee. And we had people who were dealing with issues there with the center, including that the plan said we needed a library. everyone else has forgotten that that ever existed but i've kept it alive as um as a committee and i'm the one and we might meet someday right now it's a committee of one but i'll nominate bob all right any other nominations all in favor aye all opposed designate member to economic development commission

That is me primarily because no one last time we did this volunteered. So I'd be happy to hand it off. I'm also happy to continue if no one else wants it. It's once a month on Wednesdays. On a Wednesday.

I move for Justin Wood to be our designated member to the EDC. I'll second that. Commission. All right.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

And we need to vote to authorize the town planner to sign payroll, sign A&R plans. So moved.

Second.

All right. Any discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Congratulations. Thank you. All right, so now we're past 7.30, so we'll move to the first public hearing. Correct? Correct.

Do we want to? 13, Meadowbrook.

Okay, you start it as clerk.

Okay.

You have to keep the public hearing notice, whichever will be purged.

Turn that to not in order, so the staff will check.

Yeah, the staff will check this. So we'll start with Meadowbrook? Yes. Pursuant to Section 1.3.3 and 5.13 of the Grafton Zoning Bylaws, the Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 8, 2026, commencing at 7.30 p.m. in Conference Room A of the Grafton Memorial Municipal Center, 30 Providence Road, to consider an application for a site plan approval for protected-use accessory dwelling, or ADU. The property, located at 13 Meadowbrook Road, shown as the Grafton Assessor's Map 76, Lot 22, said property is located in a low-density residential, or R40, zoning district. The applicant owners are Andrew and Laura Deschenes. My apologies if I got that wrong. Copy of the application materials are available for public inspection at the planning department during regular business hours or on the town of Grafton website.

All right, so how do we begin? Is the applicant going to come forward and say a few things?

I've always asked the planner to give an outline. Yeah, if you could please open this up.

Sure. This is an application for a protected use ADU site plan approval. It's a conversion of an existing barn. The second floor is existing, so it will be converted to an apartment. There's going to be two additional access added, one on the first floor, one on the second floor with this staircase added as well, and some renovation to the outside, but no other major construction to be done. Okay.

Do you want to, are you the applicant, sir? I am.

All right, would you like to say something? Certainly. 13, Andy Duchesne, 13 Meadowbrook Road. There were a couple of questions that were online, so I just, I wanted to make sure I came here that I could, so I could answer them. One of them was, is there any new lighting? So there will be a couple of lantern-like lights near the front door, the new front door. So that's on the lighting side of things. The other question was, is the container shown on the site plan going to stay? And the answer is no, that's just temporary. When we're going to do construction, I need to get stuff out of the barn. So that container that's in the driveway is not to stay. And I've got two pieces of homework, one of which is getting a Title V inspection of the septic system, which I've already made phone calls for, so that's about to happen, and also a water quality and quantity test. And I've got somebody on the hook for that as well. So those will both happen in the next couple of weeks.

Got it. Any questions from the board for the applicant?

I don't have any questions for the applicant, but just for planning directors. My understanding is the crash of Title five and those testings. Those don't really pertain to the board so much as far as approving this, that would just be a a part of their know a process that they'll need to meet for to do this in the building.

It's just for compliance with the health department. That's what I believed.

Yes. I figured you knew the answer to but yes, yes.

Yeah, no, we're all saying the same thing. Yep. That's that was my understanding too.

So if approved, would this need to be a contingent approval upon those getting completed or not?

That would be for, it's just noted as part of the public comment period, but it would be part of the health department permit. Thank you.

Our permit usually says something along the lines of must still comply with all local laws and regulations, which this would fall under.

Right. Yep. I'm on it.

All right.

Great.

Thank you. Thanks. I guess now we can open up to public comment. If there are public comments and you want to come forward, please do. Do we have anybody online or here that wants to comment on this project?

I see no hands raised on Zoom.

I don't see any, so... I guess I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing unless there's other comments or questions from the board.

Do we need to receive any of the items, you know, revised information?

I don't, I don't believe so. If, um, the, the parking plan was sufficient, um, there was additional spaces that were clarified. Um, but, there's three required spaces and there's space. Um, I don't believe there's anything needed to, to finalize the approval.

And I move to close the public hearing and direct staff to prepare a draft decision. Second.

Any discussion of the motion hearing? None. All in favor. All opposed. Motion carries unanimously unanimously.

We'll sometimes at this point mention, although I think they may know, that hopefully at our next meeting, we'll have a draft decision, which you should be able to see online before or be shared with the applicant before the meeting. And we'll vote on it then, assuming it's approved. Then it goes through.

All right. Okay, moving on to the second public hearing. Mr. Clerk.

Pursuant to Section 1.3.3 and 5.13 of the Town of Grafton Zoning Bylaws, the Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 8, 2026, commencing slightly after 7.30 p.m. in the Conference Room A of the Grafton Memorial Municipal Center, 30 Providence Road. consider an application for a site plan approval for protected accessory protected use accessory dwelling unit or ADU on the property located at 189 Brigham Hill Road as shown on the Grafton Assessor's Map 44 lot 4 said property is located in low density residential or R40 zoning district the applicant's owner is Terrell Salton copy of the application materials are available

Planning department during regular business hours and on the Grafton website Yes, you're the applicant yeah, please come forward we'd like the planner to actually give us the background first and then you can Share as well.

Yes. This is another site plan approval application for protected use adu This would be on the second floor of an existing garage. The second floor I believe is existing there and I'll just be renovated to a two-bedroom one-bath apartment approximately Um, for what I could see about a little under 700 square feet. Um, yeah. And there, there were some questions on there. It appears to be sufficient parking from the site plan. Some questions on where the parking is located. Um, and then some additional questions on it's, it's really having to do with the, the building permit ultimately, but. If the the basement height that's unfinished complies with the state law for protected use adu Explain more about the basement so this the unit is intended to be on the second floor it has to do with the To meet the protected use ADU, the square footage of the ADU cannot exceed more than half the square footage of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. So based on the site plan, it's difficult to tell if it meets that requirement. There is, from what I understand, an unfinished basement on the property, and that square footage would need to comply. to meet that threshold. Now this is really more of an issue with the building department permit, but it is a finding based off of the site plan that's submitted.

It has to do with the calculation of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling. It's that gross floor area which in turn limits the the square footage of the ADU, so I think we would want to see documented that gross floor area of the principal dwellings.

Is there a number that's being presented now for the gross floor of the primary dwelling?

No, not on the site plan. It can be located on the public records, but it's not on the site plan, and there's recommendations to update the site plan to better show that.

before we close the hearing. Yeah, I think it would be good to have that documented, because we really, it would be awkward if we closed the hearing and then discovered that the square footage of the ADU does not meet the requirement for protected use ADU.

Or we don't have enough information to make sure that it is okay, so we have to say no.

Yeah, that would be an alternative. I suspect the applicant would probably prefer to supply the documentation so that the board can issue a favorable decision.

All right, sir, yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, I don't know exactly. Upstairs is 1,000 square feet, 1,064, right? Basement is 502. But that's not unfinished. I finished it, but there is not any documentation.

Right. It doesn't need to be finished in order to count. Going back to what Christian said, the ADU regulations basically say that we count as gross square footage. You know anything that is of a that that's what he asked about the basement, the height of the basement that it has it has to have to be forget the exact language of.

It is 6.8 3.

If the basement isn't providing. Square footage. Does it meet the 900 square feet or

Because you're saying the proposed unit is 700 square feet, correct?

Yes, the basement square footage is needed to meet the threshold. It appears that it would qualify, but it's not shown on the site plan, so it's difficult to tell until that is updated.

If I might make a suggestion, we're not going to work out all the details, but this is something that I think between you and Christian there, you can meet with him and make sure you're clear on understanding what the ask is and then provide us with, you might just be adding a number on a plan or something, but whatever it is, I think that would tend to suggest that after whatever other discussion we have tonight, that we continue the hearing for what are the two weeks of our next meeting, that there should be ample time for you to provide the additional information, at which point we can then close the hearing and deal with the decision. It doesn't sound that complicated to me. It's just dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

Okay. I had another couple of questions, right? You say that one of this is, there was, there are two doors from the outside. And downstairs, and one of these upstairs.

So one of the questions was whether there's separate entrance for the ADU. It wasn't fully clear on the site plan, but you're saying that there is.

Yeah, there are.

Well, I need him. I need Christian to be satisfied with everything.

Okay.

The best way to get that to happen is for you and he to get together. Okay?

Okay.

And we'll see if you want to continue the hearing until...

Before we wrap this up tonight, obviously we want to know, are there any other questions or comments from the board or the public?

Well, let's find out what the public has to say about the matter.

Yes.

One thing I do see in our materials is from Ms. Balser, I believe I'm pronouncing the name correctly. It was mentioned about... She's there. Thank you. One of the questions in particular is... Basically, if Brigham Hill is a scenic road, how can an apartment be added to the existing building? I think the board knows that pretty well. I don't know if you want to try to give that answer during this meeting right now about the ADU law.

So if this ADU meets the requirements for protected use ADU as defined by the state law, the ADU would be by right in an area that allows for single-family homes, which is why it would be allowable by right.

Yeah, I don't think scenic roads changes anything, not just in this case, but in general.

Right, the jurisdiction of the scenic roads, Biola, is on the trees and stone walls along this. It doesn't, basically, it doesn't extend into the property. Yeah, but in the public way.

Yeah, so, all right, so, With that understanding, I think we want to, for any folks that have come in, we want to have an opportunity for them to make a comment. But, you know, just to put it out there, the sort of key issue here is there's a law at the state level that if these units meet the requirement, they're by right. So that's in question right now. And we want to hear, you know, the questions and concerns of everybody. But just understand that it's limited information. in some ways to that. But if anybody from the public that's online or that's here wants to come up and share some comments or questions, please do. We are essentially asking the applicant to generate clear information that will help with the determination of is this a protected ADU or not, right? If they're able to come in and say that it is a protected ADU, then by the state law, it's by right. And it just has to meet the setbacks and the other items that are, you know, present in the zone that it's being built in. So, that's kind of the core issue that we don't have the information for tonight. But I also respect the fact that folks came out. So, if you have questions or you have something that you want to share, please feel free to do it now. Otherwise, I think that's where we're headed, right, is we're asking for additional information to make sure that we can determine whether it's protected or not, and then we'll share that information in the next hearing.

Male Speaker 1 And the next hearing will still be a public hearing, right? Male Speaker 2 Right.

We will leave the public hearing open so that questions and comments will be allowed all the way through that. Yeah, please.

Male Speaker 1 If I could ask, you're the planner, correct?

Male Speaker 2 Please come to the microphone. Male Speaker 2 Please come to the microphone and just share your name and address.

Skip Jordan. I live in Leicester. My mother-in-law lives right next door to this house. Can you clarify the requirements from the square feet needed for the dwelling and this ADU and then the offsets from property lines?

The square footage, it has to comply with the the state, the definition the state has put in for gross floor area, that calculation. So based off of that definition, based on the site plan and what the square footage is, as long as it meets that threshold, it's by right.

So the state law says the accessory dwelling unit cannot exceed 900 square feet or 50% of the principal dwelling's gross floor area, whichever is smaller.

And so to put the real numbers on it, the applicant saying the main floor is 1064 square feet. And then the basement is 502 square feet. This is what's being presented tonight. So if those both add up to the gross floor, right, then they're at 1566 and a 700 square foot unit would be allowed.

But unfinished basement is included.

Yes. It's just directly from the state definition of gross floor area.

That's how it reads. We ask people to be at the mic because this gets recorded and people come and see it on cable. And it also gives a record for our people when they're doing the minutes and so on.

All right. Any other comments tonight? From the public? Either in the room or online?

Even though it's a historic road?

You can please just please come up and say your name and address so that we have the whole thing on the record. The question was again about the scenic road. So the scenic road really pertains to rock walls and things that are on the roadside. They don't pertain to the dwellings that are on the lots. Am I, to the board, am I getting that correctly?

So I have a question for the rest of the board regarding setbacks and the dual driveways. So this property has two driveways, which is not technically conformance, but that is addressed as an existing condition and is allowed to continue. Is that generally correct?

I don't believe that, because there's nothing else changing on the property, that it's existing non-conforming, so it doesn't have an impact. Thank you for clarifying.

and the setbacks in this zone would be what 15 I'd have to go and confirm specifically so it's remind me about that's our 40 yeah no 40 under a do you I'm not entirely clear if it's an existing building that you know okay that's one thing but if someone were going to put up a some additional structure as part of an ADU, do they have to obey the setbacks and whatnot that are in the zoning?

An additional structure?

Well, that would be the way you'd... Like a detached ADU?

Or expanding on a building to... Yeah, I believe that's part of it. But that's not the case in this scenario. No, but I'm... So we know.

Right. In general, a new... a new structure, a detached ADU, or an expansion of a footprint, they are required to meet the setbacks.

But to my understanding, this is an existing building. Right, that doesn't apply in this case. So the setback won't change from where it is.

Right.

As I recall, the

ADU law and regulations specifically says you're allowed to add a protected use ADU to a structure even though it is non-conforming.

I believe that's the case, yes. I can confirm for the next hearing as well.

But are you allowed to increase its non-conformity? Please, sir.

Mr.

I don't think he answered this question about the setback. What is the setback from a property line to have a building, to put a building? I understand the structure's there.

Exactly. I'd have to double-check exactly what it is, but since this is existing non-conforming, it's not something we're needing to consider if that's the case because there's no change of the setback to the structure as it exists.

I was just curious what the setback was.

Right. It varies based on what zone of property is in, so I don't always remember offhand unless I need to look it up. If you don't mind, please. This is R40?

Mr. Chairman?

The front setback?

Yep. Mr. Chairman?

Yes, Ray. Go ahead.

Yeah, the setback is 15 feet at that piece of property from a side lot. And what it appears here is that there was an addition put onto that you know, the garage and the area up above it. And it appears to be built right on the property line, which is obviously non-conforming. And I go back to what Bob just said about, you know, are we increasing an existing non-conforming use without acquiring a variance on this thing? And I think there's a lot more to this piece of property than, you know, than just... wondering what the setbacks are. But according to the what it looks like on the site plan is that that garage is on the property line or actually could possibly be a little over the property line. So I think there's a lot of things to look at in this situation.

If it was does it matter how long ago non-conforming use only is an issue up to a certain age of non-conformity, isn't it?

Correct. But what I'm saying is that, and I'm not saying that they can't do it or anything or it's not allowed because it is built right up to the property line. I just think that there's a lot more research that needs to go into this

uh this adu prior to uh prior to the board making a decision on it that's all so who would who would inquire about some of these things right so they would the building inspector have to look at are there any issues with just continuing and non-conformity well

This is, we're responsible for a site plan approval, so if this is an issue, that is sort of us. It's what? If there's an issue about does, is there a setback issue, that kind of thing, isn't that basically us to decide, to ask the question?

It seems to me that it's incumbent on us to be sure we have an adequate site plan that answers whatever questions there are. since we're looking to approve a site plan.

Right, so it seems we don't have an adequate site plan right now, right? There's information missing. So maybe the discreet next steps are for Christian to let the applicant know the information that needs to be shared and confirmed, right? And things like, does the basement count or not? And are there any other issues around the placement of the building, right? And so we can leave the hearing open And then the applicant can request a continuance to next week. I'm sorry, two weeks? Next meeting? Unless there are other comments that people want to share tonight.

Yeah, including my question about non-conforming, pre-existing, how long before, you know,

part of is it is it legit what's its status before and after this project so to put a little bit on that this board cannot continue a hearing unless the applicant requests such so mr. Sultan would need to ask the board to to continue this hearing to a future date and staff does have paperwork that they would need to sign

I'll entertain a motion to grant the continuance to the applicant.

I move to continue the public hearing to June 22nd at 7.30 p.m. as per the applicant's verbal request. Is that correct, Mr. Salton?

can you ask us on a microphone or turn the paper in sign so we can yeah please come forward so we can hear you are you are you want the next available time to discuss this after you go back and forth with the planner and provide more information is June 22nd is that date work for you in terms of being present for the meeting this is earliest time right yes okay

All right. Do you have the form? Yeah, you fill out the, what's normally done is you would fill out the form right here and right now and hand it to Christian.

Yeah.

So therefore, that way we are in receipt of a written request to continue the hearing. All right.

We don't seem to be in receipt, and we don't seem to be moving towards being in receipt.

Sir, please fill out the form really quickly and just give it to the planner. And so for everyone else here that's interested, this will be continued to June 22nd. But I can still think about it. Will we get another letter?

There will be no other letter. This is the notice for the next meeting.

So you can watch for the, when the agenda gets posted for the June 22nd meeting, it will be on there. And any new materials will be on there.

If you don't want to risk it, you can always call.

But I still think we need, don't we need a motion? Yes.

I think maybe I heard a motion to grant the applicant's written request to continue. Yeah. Second.

All right. Any discussion of the motion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay.

Now we can circle back to the discussion. Yeah.

So. Yes. Moving back to the first discussion item, which is Meadowbrook Manor. Now we're ready. So just give us a second to close this out and let the planner re-engage and then y'all can share what you need to share. All right, Christian, did you have anything you wanted to say for this?

First discussion item on Meadowbrook Manor before the applicants. Just that this is a request from the applicant to appear before the board to go over their plans for what they're looking to do with the property ahead of a formal application being submitted.

OK. So thank you again, Mr. Chair, and I want to apologize for speaking out of turn earlier. That's fine. My name is Joe Duquette. I'm from the law firm of Outage and Dewey. I'm joined tonight by the applicant, Bob Flynn, as well as the civil engineer for the modification of the definitive subdivision plan. We're here before you tonight, as Christian was saying, primarily because there's really no procedure for us to meet before the board. Because a definitive subdivision plan has already been in place, we've been advised that we can't. submit a preliminary plan to you. So we can't really get initial feedback on our application. So instead of wasting all the money to invest, we wanted to get kind of your feelings as to this proposed modification before we invest the money to engineer the plan. That being said, the definitive subdivision plan was approved in 2020. I created three lots. So this new modification would create an additional buildable lot. um in one non-buildable lot with an existing barn the intent of the modification bob can certainly correct me if i misspeak is to essentially sell that third lot and eventually sell the non-buildable barn lot to that the owner who purchases lot b we couldn't just create the lot with the barn on it because we were advised by the building commissioner that we can't have an accessory building on a lot that is newly created. So we need to create the new lot that has no buildings on it first, and so we're going through that process. As for what we're actually doing and seeking beyond the waivers that were already approved in 2020, there are only two additional waivers that we are seeking, and they're to do with the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac will now be in excess of 500 feet, which would require an additional waiver from the board upon a finding that it doesn't basically impact wetlands and discussion with chief of police, fire, conservation commission, a bunch of other committees. And the other one is to allow for a waiver from the 40 feet of radius of paved cul-de-sac. The primary purpose for not having that pavement is where the cul-de-sac is located. There's substantial wetlands there. The cul-de-sac is there to provide lawful frontage for this new lot. So it's in effect going to be a paper cul-de-sac. The fire department has approved a turnaround plan for this area, and we have two options for where the turnaround can be located. The first option would be to maintain the existing turnaround area, and the second option would be to have a second turnaround area that's closer to the cul-de-sac as modified. Outside of that, that's pretty much the scope of work and I can have the civil engineer speak to that. It is largely just maintaining the 20 foot right of way throughout the development all the way up to the proposed new cul-de-sac and that would be it. There's an existing gravel driveway that currently leads to the barn and would serve lot B. Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from the board?

This is just a driveway that we're dealing with still? Correct. An extension of the existing. Between a driveway and a private cul-de-sac. subdivision and it's it's taking it's taking frontage from a driveway i don't think you is that right no no so i apologize it's a it's a right of way it's an existing right of way

Did you say who you were? Rauf Mankarius with Alpha Omega Engineering. It is an existing subdivision right-of-way that was created in 2020, and we're only extending the cul-de-sac to create another frontage for another lot. But it's a right-of-way, and it's a 20-foot wide road that's a private way, not a driveway.

It's a private road?

Yes.

The difficult thing is these are waivers being proposed, but there can be question and answers or discussion, but there can be no formal decision on what will happen because there's no application before the board or anything like that. So I think that's sort of the difficult part as well. But I know there's information to be presented here. There's waivers that are proposed, but again, there's no real definitive answer that can be determined.

I'm going to be really puzzled about this, where the frontage is coming from and what the status of it is. I don't remember any others like this, and I've been here a while.

All these waivers were already granted before for the same subdivision. We're only extending the cul-de-sac another 160 feet just to get frontage.

Frontage for the Bourne Road. Frontage for the Bourne Road, the other lot.

So in the underlying zoning district, 140 feet of frontage is typically required unless it's a dead-end cul-de-sac, which allows for 90 feet. That's the entire benefit of having the cul-de-sac serve as the frontage for this lot. it would provide 90 feet of frontage for both the existing lot A as modified and the new lot B. Where the current cul-de-sac is does not go quite so far, so lot B would not be possible without this extension. So that's all it is.

I'm kind of circling the existing turnaround cul-de-sac here, and the proposal is to extend the subdivision road so that the cul-de-sac is now over here.

That's correct.

And then lot A here and lot B here both have frontage on that cul-de-sac.

That would be correct, yes.

There's no change there.

So on the ground, the roads would stay pretty much as existing, except for where it's not 20 feet wide.

But the layout, a definitive plan based on that would have a new subdivision road layout that goes farther, that moves the cul-de-sac farther. That's exactly right, yes. So on the plan, you've got a subdivision road with a cul-de-sac up. that would be going out to here, how much of that is actually paved? I understand you to be saying you're not actually proposing to pave that entire paper.

The right of way on paper is not going to be entirely paved. That's correct. So currently existing is a 20-foot right of way that goes all the way to Mr. Flynn's house on Lot A. It goes all the way up there. You can see it on the plan there. Again, this is going to be effectively a paper cul-de-sac, if you will. It's there in legal rights only. There's no intent to build it out because there's wetlands there. The existing one.

I know of at least one other paper cul-de-sac in town. Mm-hmm.

And so will there be sort of a fork at the end of it, like literally on the ground, and then there'll be a driveway going into Lafayette? Yes, exactly. All existing driveways.

That exists right now.

Everything is existing. Right.

So a question for the fellow members of the board and our planner. Is this zoning bylaw, or is this subdivision rules and regulations? Which bodies? Subdivision rules. Yeah, this is under subdivision rules. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, Ray.

Yeah, so this is the first time I've seen this. Well, not the first time, but I saw it earlier. I'm kind of confused. I see what we're trying to do here is we're trying to create a frontage for lot A, and we're trying to create frontage for lot B by putting in a so-called paper cul-de-sac that's not even on a road. So I guess my question is, is that how do you have And then I'm just throwing out 125 feet. How do you have 125 feet of frontage on a driveway that's not a road?

If I may, through the chair. Sure. So the definitive subdivision plan, which was approved in 2020, created this private way known as Flynnway or Meadowbrook Lane. So it is, for purposes of the subdivision control law, a public way from which a lot can be created. We are, by virtue of this modification, seeking to extend the private way an extra 160 some odd feet.

You just said it was a public way. This is going to bother me. You came here to find out. It's going to bother me. You just said private way. Then you said public way. And I don't think I'm going to... It's a private road. I don't think I'm going to be satisfied tonight with all of this. It's going to take a lot more, including looking back at the previous. How many... How many... How many... livable units are up this driveway now.

It's not a driveway. It was on the original plan. This was called a private road. This way.

Whatever way it is.

It was a private road that I had to make.

My question was how many houses are there? Two. There are two. There's two houses.

Okay. I'm sorry.

In the original... subdivision, I was not allowed to make it a driveway like 13 Meadowbrook Road was allowed years ago. And you told me I had to make it a private way, making it 20 feet wide. I did that and also did a lot of engineering work to get the fire truck to come in the driveway because Meadowbrook Road was crowned. It cost me $25,000 to get an illegal fire truck into this subdivision, what you call a subdivision, OK? And it works. And I went to the fire chief with this new plan, and he said he would accept what we're doing here with the turnaround, OK? Prior to doing this, the gravel road to the barn has been used for the last 40 years that I've lived there with a person that I leased the barn to. There's four horses and five cows there on the property, which is allowed by five acres of land. So we're not adding any additional traffic. The private way is 20 feet wide up to the turnaround.

If I may, through the chair. Oh, sorry. Yes, Ray.

Yeah, so I'm a little confused on this. This, to me, looks like a shared driveway that is accessing two lots. That's what it looks like to me. I'm kind of confused on the cul-de-sac. I understand that you probably want to sell lot B to someone else, and that's where you're getting your frontages on this cul-de-sac. But it looks to me like a shared driveway. And in a private way, it's not a public street. It's not named. It's not built. It's not, you know, it's just from what somebody said, it was partially dirt. So is this more of a, you know, a shared driveway than a, then really subdivision controls and regulations?

Through the chair, land use council. No, it would be a private way. For purposes of the subdivision control law, which is the confusion, I did not misspeak, but the subdivision control law requires a public way. It's a different, it's confusing to everybody, but for purposes of this, that the created way, a Flynn way, is a private way, but under the subdivision control law, it's considered a public way from which a lot can be built. It's confusing, I know. However, the point being, extending it to be a cul-de-sac here, The entire point of it, and we need to seek waivers to do this from you, which is why we're here to see your willingness to grant this waiver before we even invest the money in doing these engineered plants, is to allow for that 50 feet fewer frontage. Because otherwise, Lot B would not be buildable without substantial paving, and it just wouldn't be feasible on this site.

Mr. Chair? Yes. So I will say I'm never a fan of what I would consider this loophole of using a cul-de-sac that you just make and make that frontage. That said, this wouldn't be the first situation in Grafton that has used that loophole. So that to me wouldn't be a reason to not do this. Which other one? I do not remember offhand, but I know there was one that came before us when I was here on the board. try to remember i'm thinking of something you might be thinking about it was a long time before you were okay um and it wasn't comparable to this but the this board has also been um pretty conscious about trying not to have a subdivision road go past 500 feet i think the use case here i would be comfortable with the 665 667 foot and i'm phrasing that just to have something to change and to avoid a potential jinx of of bad numbers i appreciate that but so i would be given what i know today i would feel comfortable thank you

doesn't any other folks want to share their their view of it i mean it's a tricky thing because we can't can't be really a committal right in through the chair we're not expecting a vote or a straw poll or anything just one to see if there's really any hard stops like what like i will not approve this does anybody feel that way based on this information or i mean i think we all obviously need to see a full-on plan and everything to make a decision but i'm just i'm gonna say that

I would need some help with, on the legal side, drilling down into this, because there's enough flags in my head that, huh? So I can't say, well, first of all, I'm not going to say I approve anything until we've had a hearing. But we'll see.

I think I'm more or less with Justin in this, that although this is a somewhat peculiar situation, that there's nothing in here to the extent that what we're looking at is not fully engineered and it's not an actual application for modification of a definitive plan. So as everybody else has been saying, we can't commit to anything tonight. but I'm similarly favorable to this, assuming the details all work.

And we would work certainly with all town departments, including Christian, flesh out any questions beforehand.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, Ray.

I just got it. So the cul-de-sac that you show that you're not gonna build, This driveway with the cul-de-sac, who owns this? Who owns this piece of property that you are now creating this cul-de-sac on?

Flynn owns it. It's called Flynn Way. The town asked me to name it as a street, and I named it Flynn Way.

Okay, but when you got that approval, it didn't have a cul-de-sac on it, correct?

Yes, it did. It did.

In the position where it is right now?

And a cul-de-sac owner to approve the first two lots with a turnaround.

Okay, so I'm not trying to bust your chops here. I'm really trying to get oriented to this.

There's an existing cul-de-sac to make the first two house lots.

I think they understand. Right, but now there's going to be a new cul-de-sac 300 feet away. And you're going to own that also. Is that correct?

Yes. If I may, through the chair, the underlying cul-de-sac, the private way will be every owner along this private way will have an easement by virtue of necessity over this private way. So it's not owned by any individual person. It's owned by all of the owners along the way.

No, it's actually owned by me because I pay taxes. I was going to say. I was going to say, you can't grant an easement unless you have an owner.

Anyway, I guess one thing, I don't understand the... I understand the shared drive. I don't understand the cul-de-sac. You've got an existing cul-de-sac. You're going to move it 300 feet. The original owner is going to own that. He's going to grant easements for people to pass over it. And...

Thanks. Well, functionally, and I've been past this functionally off Meadowbrook, it is labeled as a private road. It is a private road. It looks like a road, not a not a shared. It is because it was I don't, you know, just just bringing in that piece of context.

So it's when I developed the original two lots. Okay, the planning board asked me to make it a private road and name it. I wanted to name it Meadowbrook Manor, but they said that was too close to the fire department and everybody not being able to read the difference between Meadowbrook Road and Meadowbrook Lane. It was too confusing. So we named it Flynn Way, and it is a private way. I pay taxes. My tax bill includes my lot and the street.

In the street. Okay, that was my question. And that's what I paid for. That was my question.

So it's a street.

You own, Mr. Flynn, you own that piece of property. You are going to grant easements for people to pass over that property to access their pieces of property, correct? That's correct. Okay. I'm fine.

All right. Any other questions or things that people want to express?

I think I have a good sense from the board. I appreciate your candor this evening. I think we have enough to go on.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next item for discussion is the upcoming plan updates. Yes. Thank you.

Um, Mr. Chair, let me try to find my documents here. Um, So I wrote this memo and added these to the agenda just because as I've been going through all the ongoing projects, there were some that I thought would be prudent to bring up to the board just because there's some upcoming expiration dates and deadlines that are coming up soon. And some of these projects will likely involve participation from the board over the next few months. So the first one I have on here, and also these are just intended to flag milestones if there's any discussion or directive or feedback from the board i'm open to that but also that it could be just informational as well but the first um item on here is the open space and recreation plan this is set to expire uh a year from now in june 2027 so that process will need to start soon um Just to say that that that's underway and I'm looking to initiate that but once that starts The planning process there will be some input from the board and then the last few times that the board has Adopted this plan once it's been completed. So that is coming up In addition to that the hazard mitigation plan is set to expire in 2028 in January so that plan important to receive certain federal grants including FEMA grants that plan will be discussed next month at an annual hazard mitigation committee meeting there's also a planning board member on that committee so that's another one that will be underway soon as well who is our current delegate to the hazard mitigation plan me thank you mr. Robbins Finally, for the plans, there's the MVP plan, the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Planning process. This is the second iteration of that. Grattan participated in the first iteration in 2018. We're working with CMRPC on this plan. There's some interaction from the planning board on that, an open public feedback session, so that will be coming up soon. That's underway currently. Okay.

I will reach out to you sometime, hopefully later this week, on the open space and rec plan. I have an open space and rec committee meeting coming up next week, and they're getting interested in what we're going to do about updating the plan. Okay. So we'll talk.

Thank you for proactively keeping this on our radars. Thank you.

And what about, so moving on to the CBL.

Yes, there's also some upcoming potential bylaw updates that will be required. One is it's not a requirement to update the bylaws, but this is a new law from the state, from Department of Energy Resources, of a new permitting process that's being implemented, clean energy permitting and siting regulations. So it's a new consolidated permit process that it's – It's not required for the applicant to partake in, but it's required to be offered as an optional alternative to permitting processes.

I'm not trying to cut you off, but you can finish that on that one.

Okay. There's a lot of information to it. There's more that's on our website. We actually post a lot on the project page for this. But there's a lot to it. My suggestion, if the board is interested, is CMRPC has offered technical assistance hours to look through our bylaws and also offer technical assistance on how to implement this correctly. I can reach out to them if that's of interest. Otherwise, I can provide more information in a separate memo.

I think my biggest question is, I don't remember much being about the permitting process in our bylaws for the zoning bylaw or subdivision rules on the board's side. I know staff has done changes to how permitting works in the past, but I don't remember us as a board having really much to say on how that works.

I believe this is the webinar... or this was under the webinar that I participated in a few days ago. It started at noon, which is a little unusual. Well, not for pros. I think it jumped a little too far ahead. I was talking to people that already knew they had a problem here, and they were going to have to do something only it's not required. And it kept getting a little sort of circle. I don't know what we have to do, because some of it was you don't have to. But I have the materials from that if anybody is interested. Interested let me know and I'll do some sharing.

Well, maybe I'll send them over and you can Do my understanding last time I read up on this There's a couple of elements here. One is the consolidated permitting process Which we have to be able to support come October 1st and that what that means is there is a single permit application that gets filed and It comes to a point of contact here in town, which by default is the town administrator. That's something we may want to think about. It's basically a different set of paperwork from what we normally get, but other than that, the procedures on our end, the planning board's end, the procedures are all the same. It's just that the filing comes in differently than we normally get it. Then there are questions about do we want to cater to this in any way in our zoning bylaws, which is, I mean, we'd have to look at that to see. They're offering some model bylaws and so on so we can we can contemplate what, if anything, we might want to change in the ZBL. But as a minimum, the town has to be prepared to accept the consolidated application, forward it to the various entities that would typically be planning and conservation. So it's a different way of processing the paperwork that we have to adapt to. I'd love to see how

That intersects first with we have a whole set of requirements for a submission. CONCOM has another set and so on. And how those get handled by the person trying to submit this consolidated application will presumably go through our stuff and say, you know, And you submitted or you didn't, what you needed to do. So all of that's hard to imagine how that's going to work. But then there was also a consolidated single decision. And I don't understand how that's going to work, because the law requires the planning board to make a decision on this and that, unless you just Everybody makes their decisions, and you staple them together and call it a decision.

It might be that simple, but I don't know.

Well, I'd say it sounds like the technical assistance would be helpful. Yes. So I think we support you in seeking that technical assistance.

Well, we get a certain number of credits. Every town gets 12 hours, and then another hour for each of 12 meetings that somebody from the town goes to. So we always, you know, I go to about 20 or 30 meetings, so we get plenty of.

Because of you, Bob, we get the max. We get our credits, but it's only 24 hours. So I'll reach out to them and see what. what we have the ability to do and if there's decisions to be made on that, I can bring it back here and we can figure out what the best option is.

Given the October 1st deadline, I do believe we want to press forward to be prepared for it.

Yeah.

We could accept these consolidated applications as early as July 1st if we wanted to, and I'm not going to push that. It's not required.

There is a size element here. This is for certain size projects. Big projects have a different path, I think, and I don't know how that would work. I don't think we have any place that what I was hearing would be likely to go to, but... how many megawatts, how many acres, how many square miles they're going to take up. So we need, at least I need, a lot better sideline down where we're going.

Yeah, so I would say please inquire and then just give us the full context of what's available and how many credits we need to use up or whatever that is. Okay.

Another important update that will be coming soon has to do with the FEMA flood map updates So I'm trying to get into contact with the state contact who has been helping us I think he's been out of the office for a couple weeks, but once that Process is completed and I don't have all the details and where it's at but it will likely require a bylaw update by springtown meeting 2027 So it's a little ways away, but there's some information coming in prior to then so, okay Is that going to involve the planning board or concom? It would affect section six of The zoning bylaw Um, finally, and I don't have as much information on this, but I know it's a project in process is VHB is working on studies that involve, um, our MS4 permit compliance and looking at low impact design. Like I said, I don't have all the details on that, but it will likely require additional, um, bylaw updates coming, uh, at fall town meeting. I believe that's the case. So would those, would those be ones that the planning board would bring? I believe so, that we have involvement in that from the notes I've been able to see. So I'm mostly putting that on the radar that it could come back up again soon.

Okay. Mr. Chair, as I've been reading the zoning bylaw and the subdivision rules and regulations, I'm amassing a decent-sized list of what I would consider non-substantive changes to the zoning bylaws just making things internally consistent none of them are significant but we couldn't possibly use the modification of the zbl for the scheduled change to section six is a chance to update some that's good typos and stuff i thought we

had done some of that fairly recently.

We've done a fair number of things.

There's always more to do. So the next opportunity would be at Fall Town Meeting, right? Yeah. So leading up to that, we can review by-law changes and then decide what needs to go on the warrant.

The thing about Fall Town Meeting is we begin to get serious sometime in August when it's too late. Everybody know summer this is when you got to be active you know this is already part of a way into june yeah um and there's a long timeline when we're doing zoning going to town meeting so Of course, it might not be, you know, it could be spring or whatever. It depends on what it is.

Yeah, so Michael, I would say share whatever you have with Christian. We can kind of look at it as like a prioritized list.

None of the things I've caught have hurt anybody so far, so far as I know. They're just, you know, language choices. Like we use both building inspector and inspector of buildings. We have references to our town engineer, but like we outsource some of that.

And some places call them building commissioner. Yeah, yeah. But we're getting closer than we used to with some of that. Yeah.

And this is not to disparage all of the work that's been done before. It's just as I'm reading this with fresh eyes.

That's always useful.

New eyes. You know, I read what I learned when I did that in 91. They're a little different now.

Yeah, not to belabor the point, but I went through a very similar exercise a few years ago when we did a major update to the subdivision rules and regulations. I did a lot of work in trying to make the terminology more consistent.

I believe the file still bears your initials.

Anyway. All right. Moving on with the...

master plan and these are two recently completed plans that are looking to stand up implementation committees or working groups one is the master plan committee implementation committee and then the grafting common traffic study working group. So just to say I'm looking to stand these up as soon as possible. I'm sure there would potentially be interest in planning board representation on them. So as that's moving forward, I can keep you updated on those, but those are in the works.

I'm interested in the common traffic being, you know, I can represent the common study committee.

Yes. Yes. And I will have some stuff for you shortly on the master plan. digging through my notes and trying to figure out what I was trying to say. All right. It's bad enough I make notes, but then I have to read them and understand them.

On the common traffic, I'm the one living advocate of a plan that no one else likes, so. Okay. All right, moving on to the general business. So, do you have some bills? I know that we...

authorized payment of the bill second Moved and seconded any discussion of the motion Hearing none all in favor aye all opposed motion carries unanimously Minutes of previous meetings Did we have any?

Yes.

Yes. Okay. I move the board approve the minutes of March 23rd, 2026 as drafted with any changes that might be noted during discussion of the motion. Second.

All right. Moved and seconded. Any discussion of the motion?

I didn't see anything I thought should change.

All right. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Meaning the motion passes unanimously. Staff report, although we've sort of had that through your memo.

Yeah, not much more to update than that, so I'll skip that this week just based on my previous updates.

Great. Anybody see anything in correspondence?

Correspondence, there was just some project updates from Graves. Their inspection reports were in there.

Yeah.

All right. I think that brings us through. Any other items that are lawfully can come before us? I don't see anybody here. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot the reports from planning board representatives from town committees and CMRPC.

I have nothing.

I'm attending. Well, I intend to attend the annual meeting CMRPC Thursday and we'll find out who won the offices. I'm on the executive committee and There were no only one set of Candidates so I think I may be vice chair again this time But we'll find out on Thursday How familiar are you with CMR PC familiar with their work and I'm I have a couple meetings I've been meeting with their associate staff and I have a couple meetings set up with their the leadership so I'm familiar with them okay because I you know I've been on the executive committee for 30-some years so and I'm chairman of the Transportation Planning Committee and I'm on the physical development committee which deals with money that might be useful You know, we get a lot of, like, seed money things for the most part. But they all know up there where the money can come from when you talk to them.

And as far as EDC goes, the only thing to note is we were preparing for having a spring event for businesses and interested parties to come, but the venues and dates that we were looking at were not available and it was coming up too fast. The EDC itself decided not to pursue a spring event and was going to do a fall one.

Okay. Any other updates? Any other things that can legally come before us? I move we adjourn. Second. Not debatable. All in favor? Aye. We are adjourned.