Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All this meeting to order the recording and progress meeting of the graph and planning board. Um, we began as always with public input. So if anybody here or online has something that they'd like to bring before us, that's not on the agenda. Please speak up now. Don't see anybody here.

Is there anybody online? We have no attendees on zoom.

Okay. All right. Let's move right into our discussion items. So, uh, the first thing is the continuation of the discussion on the data center bylaws. I know some information was sent around, but Christian, if you want to kind of take us to where we're at and, um, it's council on. Yeah. Tony's here. Okay. Tony's here. Great.

Um, thanks Tony for being here. Uh, so yes, uh, last meeting we looked at a first iteration of more potential moratorium language and, voted to advance that there are some questions, um, and edits that were discussed. Um, as part of that, there's some additional, um, correspondence between council and myself, primarily based on asking the question, how long can we, or should we potentially, um, implement a moratorium for as part of that, there was some, uh, more detailed look at the bylaw, um, Council's assistance and so I Tony came to sort of discuss that And there I created a new version proposed bylaw change based off of that so Maybe without going too far into too many details I can have Tony explain a little bit what we discussed and how that came about and The board may have questions for council as well.

Sure Yeah, Tony. Why don't you go ahead?

Sure All right, so in working with Christian, he shared with me the draft bylaw amendment, and there's a couple parts to it. And so first, defining a data center as an actual use, I think that's a good thing, and then I have no issue with the definition that Christian used. uh proposed and then also then adding that specific use to the use table and um essentially banning it town wide by putting the capital ends all through the table is also fine so what that means is that you've defined this as a standalone use adding it as a new use to your bylaw and saying that it's not allowed in town I don't think there's a problem with that at all.

I think where it could cause some confusion is if you're going to put it... We're having a volume issue here in the room. Hold on one moment. Maybe just try speaking again, but a little louder. Can you hear me now?

Something broke down. I'm not sure what that is.

Just hold on one second, Tony, because we need to troubleshoot that so we can hear you.

Try again, Tony.

How's this sound now?

Still very quiet. Quiet in here.

I can try to talk louder. Does that help?

We're working on, I don't think that's it.

There's something with our speakers in the room.

Okay. Can you try again?

How's it sound now?

Still working on it.

Try now.

Test, test. All right. Okay, good.

All right.

Do you want me just to start over? It wasn't that long.

We got the beginning of it in terms of defining the use, putting it into the bylaws, having the capital ends across the different zones.

All right. So now when we talk about the moratorium, if you're going to define the use in the bylaw and have the ends across the line in the use table, Let's say it's a year or two-year moratorium. Because you're banning it townwide, it's not really a moratorium on anything. And even if that two-year moratorium ran, it would nevertheless still require an additional amendment to the zoning bylaw to allow... you know, whatever form of data center or whatever district, you know, that the planning board would like and that ultimately town meeting would approve. So I think the easy way of putting it is that if you're going to define the use and then ban the use townwide, you actually don't need a moratorium. It just might cause some confusion. That's not to say that you can't put it in there, but then I think the practical question is, let's say you have a moratorium for two years. Well, what happens at the end of two years? You have to come back and do another bylaw amendment anyway to allow it somewhere. Some other communities that have the moratoriums, what they've done is that They've put in their use table, they've defined the use, you know, put the data center in their use table and then came up with a set of regulations where some limited type of data center, you know, is allowed. But their moratorium basically says that you can't apply for anything under this portion of our bylaw for, you know, two years from now. So that makes sense. I'm sure Christian talked about it with you, but if you were to allow it now, add a moratorium, and say then whatever gets passed can then be used in two years, that makes sense to me. But if you're going to ban it townwide, you don't really need a moratorium at all. Because no matter what, you're going to have to come back and amend the zoning bylaw to allow it somewhere.

And just to be clear, to change the designation on the use table that would take going to town meeting, right?

Yeah, it's still an amendment to the zoning bylaw. So you, and you know, because you haven't proposed it as an allowed use anywhere as of yet, you know, you'd have to change, you know, one or more of the ends to a Y in the districts that you, you know, deem are appropriate, but then you'd all, you know, likely have to come up with a set of actual, you know, like a bylaw regulation to add to the bylaw in general.

That's where I was just say Define the use and say it's not allowed maybe we can vote Aside from that vote to all the stuff about studying and and Coming forward with something else, but I don't know I don't know of anyone who I haven't seen anyone who's going to object to us asking town meeting to just ban it for now. There aren't any advocates for data centers anywhere.

Right, and I think the benefit of identifying the specific use and making it not allowed townwide is that you avoid the situation where some folks might come in and try to say that a data center is something like an industrial use or a warehouse, and then you're dealing with an argument that this data center should be allowed under... you know, some of the things that are already allowed in town. Um, this kind of makes it black and white. So you're not dealing with a, you know, a creative argument, you know, that you might get in some application to justify why it fits into something that's, you know, currently, you know, in theory doable.

What do you think about the, uh, the, the little section there where it says the, uh, building commissioner or whoever it is, um,

determines if about the use they determine anyway don't they yeah now he has something to look at he has a definition to apply in the in the draft definition you know that i've seen so he can actually look to the definition and then make a determination rather than trying to make a determination whether a data center is something like a warehouse or something like an industrial use that he has to make a decision on. If you define it specifically, he has something to work with. But either way, it's fine for him to do it. That's what the building commissioner does.

That's not exactly... My question is, we have a draft and in it is a paragraph, a line that says... Do you mind if I...

I know what you're saying. Please. In one of the drafts, Tony, where we had added a new section to Section 5 of the bylaw that would regulate data centers, there was a request to put a small paragraph in there that said the building enforcement officer will determine what a data center is. The new draft, we don't have that section anymore, but I think we're trying to make it clear that whether that sentence is in there or not, the building enforcement officer is the one who will make the determination. I thought it was, and my computer has failed me. It was in the draft where we had the moratorium language, because that's where we would put the data center moratorium language in Section 5, but if we were to do it this way, then that section would not be added. Okay.

Yeah, so let me, just for clarity here, We have option A and option B. Option A was with the moratorium language. Option B, draft B, was to add the definition and then put ends across the use table, right? It sounds like we're headed towards draft B. Is there anybody here advocating for the moratorium language or draft A at this point? Otherwise, we can just be talking about draft B. I like draft B.

It keeps it simple. And basically, what it does is it... It removes any ambiguity about where a data center fits into the use table. And it just across the board bans them, which we can do. Data centers are not on the Chapter 48, Section 3 list of things that we are not allowed to regulate or ban. Yeah, that's the key. We're free and clear on that. I think the AG's decision on Mansfield made that pretty clear. So, yeah, it's just nice and simple. No data centers until such future time as maybe we decide we want to. We might want to look at other things, some of the topics that we've discussed about regulating noise and all that, but none of that needs to be a part of this. Right.

And, Christian, just to the question before, because it's being defined in the bylaw, you don't need the building commissioner... you know, to be authorized to come up with what he thinks a data center is. The bylaw defines it, and then, you know, I don't see how this would be possible in, you know, real life, but let's say someone pops one up when they shouldn't have. He has a definition now to look to to see if, you know, if someone built a data center without anyone knowing about it somehow and that he could enforce against, but...

I thought that was the... Oh, this is more in the computers in the closet... thing instead of the big big building thing and someone's yeah you know someone's trying to trying to weave a line uh down there and the way it gets decided whether we put it in the bylaw or not is the building commissioner um zoning office besides um we don't have we don't have to tell her to do it or allow her to do it because that's her job to do that

That's her statutory authority under 48.

That language is not in Draft B. Unless somebody else has something to say now, I think we're all focusing on Draft B. What I'm hearing and my personal opinion is this gets us the definition captured in the bylaw and then stops it so that there's clarity. Then we would come back just the way we would have to come back for a bylaw or a change to the use table.

town meeting when the time comes right and I'd be happy for us to take up 3a at this point all right sorry Mike one one thought here I I am also in favor of B but I am proposal B I'm concerned that without there being a moratorium and a deadline for us to work to There may be insufficient motive for us to address and update items like noise, vibration, heat, things like that.

I suggested that we vote a request or instruction to the planner to do all that stuff that's listed in A as a separate step. because that doesn't need to be in the bylaw. I think it needs to go into the select board and I probably want you to do that.

And the town administrator. In terms of what we do for fall town meeting, sounds like we are all in a violent agreement that draft B as it is written is probably perfectly suitable for submitting to the warrant. In fact, I would so move that the Planning Board vote to do that.

Well, now we've got to move to 3A to do that, like I suggested. Yeah. And I'll move it.

I will. No, go ahead. Well, shall we take 3A out of order here?

I'm fine with that.

Okay. Motion made. Seconded.

All right. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion?

My only comment, I agree with. Dave, I think there is a slight concern on my end on how we messaged that out to the town because there was a clear desire for people to try to do a moratorium to avoid this in terms of the citizen's petition that got started as well as a select board in our discussion. But I agree this achieves what people want. It's just the messaging we'll need to figure out. It doesn't need to be today. It's just a commentary.

I think we can, you know, I'm happy to go down there and briefly describe what it is and how it works and the fact that it's a ban townwide and that any change to that ban would have to come back through town meetings so that people understand that, you know, that's how it works.

If you want to think of it this way, what we're proposing is essentially a moratorium with no end date. Right.

Well, no, it's not a moratorium. It's just there's some things we don't let them do in Grap. Yeah. And one of them is this.

um but yeah but if we didn't if we never wanted to allow it then no action needed you just let it roll indefinitely um so it actually has less the variability than the moratorium all right any other discussion of the of the motion all right hearing none all in favor aye all opposed carries unanimously all right we did it

um okay so back to discussion item b uh changes to the mgl 40a yeah thank you um yes so there was some correspondence sent out and i think news um and also some information added to correspondence last week about changes to 40a that came um from the state um so there's some interest or inquiry about discussing what, if anything, should be done about those changes with Grafton Zoning By-law, when or how should that happen. So Tony is here as well, sort of the expert on maybe not the expert, but more expert than me. More, maybe it's not about a little bit longer than I have, but it's all brand new. So just to give us some insight on what that may look like, when that should happen. And then of course, if there's any questions from the board, you can take those as well.

Yeah, why don't you go ahead and just give us the overview.

Sure. So, you know, very high-level overview of some of the amendments that, you know, very recently caused the Zoning By-law to be out of date. So, first, there are some amendments to Chapter 48, Section 6, having to do with non-conforming uses and structures. What has changed is that there are some as-of-right protections now for residential uses. So if you have a certain type of non-conforming structure that's used for any kind of residential use, not just a single and two-family residential structure, which was the old language, You can, you know, alter or change that without having to get, you know, what is everyone commonly referred to as a Section 6 finding that is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. So there's less requirements now for nonconforming residential structures where in most cases, know case by case but in most circumstances that's something that the building commissioner can do without an applicant having to come before a board to get the finding what's also has been done is for pre-existing non-conforming uses and structures the old lapse date where you would lose that protection was two years they changed that to four years Okay, and then also the time where a permit expires has been increased to four years. And then there has also been a tolling period added where the four year clock either starts or the count is told if you are still actively pursuing other kinds of permits and approvals that you need to complete the project. So for example, if someone gets a special permit to build something but they also need conservation approval the time doesn't start to run you know or the time the time that their permit expires does not run while they're you know actively pursuing you know let's say their order of conditions that they might need um And then it also says that you need to be actively pursuing the last required permit in order to complete the project. We read that in general as the building permit. There might be a specific application where that might not be the case, but in general, what it's done, the amendment has greatly expanded the timelines and added a tolling period where it's going to be far less common for special permits to lapse for non-use. That also goes for building permits, any kind of zoning permit that you have. Applicants have a lot longer to... get started and exercise those before they're considered lapsed. Another one is that they changed the standard for granting variances. Variances used to be granted what were supposed to be sparingly. An applicant had to show that there was some issue with the soil conditions and the shape or the topography of the land. you know, that justified the particular variance being sought. Now, the new 40A section 10 says that the standard is that a strict enforcement of the ordinance or bylaw would result in a practical difficulty. That has not been defined, but it expands the zoning board's power or any board that's going to grant a variance. It's a lot wider of a range of information you can consider in granting a variance. This is so brand new where there hasn't been much commentary out there about what practical difficulty really means. At the end of the day, that's the new standard. And the new statute does say that soil conditions, shape, and topography can be considered, but that's not the standard anymore. So we have to maybe think about it a little more, but practical difficulty is the new variance standard. And then as applied to Grafton, Your zoning bylaw does not allow for use variances, but the bylaw amendment or bylaw, excuse me, the statute amendment now allows use variances statewide for residential uses. So it doesn't apply to any commercial properties or anything like that, but... In theory now, you can get a use variance to put some type of residential structure either in a zone where one might not be allowed or, well, that would pretty much be it. So use variances for residential structures are now allowed statewide. And something like that would conflict what you have in your bylaws saying that no, use variances are allowed. So, you know, it might make sense to amend some of the zoning bylaw to conform with the current Chapter 40A. You know, it could either happen in the fall or the spring. I think there's going to be some more zoning amendments coming. So it all kind of depends on how quickly, you know, the board wants to move and what you think the appetite for town meeting would be to update the zoning bylaw. But I think if it's possible with the timing... It's probably better to do it sooner than later because there's a chance where there can be applications coming in where people are operating under the new statute, but it conflicts with what the zoning bylaw says. So if the building commissioner or town staff or any of the boards looks at what's being applied for, they're used to looking at the zoning bylaw, but there's a bunch of new things in the statute that became effective July 1st. So they override what the zoning bylaw says. So it just creates confusion if it's let, you know, let to sit too long. I don't think the spring is too long, but I think, you know, either try to do it in the fall or definitely by the spring. And then as more zoning amendments come in from the legislature, then we just kind of update as we can once they get signed by the governor.

Yeah, it seems... With the level of detail here, the fall's tight. I mean, what do you think, Christian?

It would be my preference for the spring. Yeah.

But by then, it would be fine. Our timeline is just... I wouldn't be happy that we could do it right. I mean, we have days, almost, before we have to vote, advertise, hear, all that.

Yeah, and this all came out a month ago, so everyone's in the same boat. Like always, I would just suggest for Christian or the building commissioner, if people are coming in and asserting new rights, then you can always check with our office, and we can help figure out what they need in the short term, and then we can get it done for the spring.

If the ZBA... needs help, we'll help them. That's a ZBA problem, isn't it? Certainly the variance.

Anyone, yeah, I mean, anyone who identifies, you know, some applications are more detailed than others. It'd be helpful if, you know, someone put in the cover letter that we're operating under the new Chapter 48, Section 6, and we're entitled to XYZ, and, you know, that triggers a question, and then our office can help out, but... And it's definitely going to be helpful to spot the main issues that have changed so that we're not either requiring people to go through hearings that they don't need to go through. or giving out something like a building permit right away when the law actually doesn't support it. It'll be kind of a scramble for a couple months, but if it can get done in the spring, I think that's just fine.

Yeah, I think the relevant staff and boards here need to be fully informed about these new things and how it may affect review of projects and all that, but... Yeah, as sort of a housekeeping thing, it would be good to have the zoning bylaw reflect these latest changes. And if we're talking about spring, there may be other changes coming around before the end of this year, which we'll all need to fold into that. But for right now, to my mind, it's sufficient that all of us who need to know this stuff are fully aware that these are the things that affect our interpretation of our current zoning bylaw.

My office sent out a primer on this a couple weeks ago, and I think it's pretty helpful. And then I'm in regular contact with Tracy and Christian. They always reach out when they need to, and we're always available. So I don't think anything will slip through the cracks.

So as long as we make sure the Joining Board of Appeals is aware. Unless somebody's about to make an argument about whether we can do it by the fall, I think we're just going to ask Christian to get this on the schedule with plenty of breathing room for the spring and to be able to incorporate anything that comes along the road.

Put on our list of things to do in time for springtime meeting is to prepare any zoning bio updates that need to be done to reflect the new statutes.

I just want to say that I remember when use variants were taken out of our bylaw and it was, you don't want to go back there. It was a reason. And so we want to, you know.

There's a way to keep it narrow and consistent with what the law requires.

Most people who remember are dead now, so.

Yeah, and... I don't think any of us are interested in proposing something, a change in that element that goes beyond what the legislature has told us.

Only goes as far as Beacon Hill says we have to.

We have to adapt to what the legislature is putting on our backs.

Yes, so, good enough, right? That's it.

It's 7.30. It's 7.29.

No.

I watch the 7.30.

but I don't have my computer get 30 second breather and then we'll move on to our public hearing so for the updates to MGL 40 a to be reflected in our zoning bylaw I know it's a moving target they put out the guidance but the interpretation of that has not been challenged or crystallized or fully fleshed out so it's a bit of a moving target which is very unfortunate to codify When, time-wise, should we start hashing that out for spring meeting? November, January?

My first instinct was to say January. January sounds good. There may be other things that we decide we're going to go for in the spring that may require more lead time. This set of changes, I suspect January. Yeah, January, give us a month or two to work out what we want to propose.

Yeah, and just so you know, these are, you know, as they will operate, these are large changes, but to actually amend what the zoning bylaw says, it's not extremely difficult. It's Redlining single and two-family residential structures, just to call it residential structures. It's just putting in the new variance standard. It's changing the lapse dates from two to four. I mean, it's not a complete rewrite of what you already have. It's just kind of editing those couple words that were changed in the statute, and then otherwise you can keep the bylaw sections as they are for the most part. I reserve my right to change my opinion as we get into it, but it's not a huge, it doesn't seem like it'll be a big lift.

These things do tend to evolve somewhat. Yeah, you get four years instead of two now.

Yes. All right. Well, unless there's any final comments, I want to keep it moving to the public hearing here because it's 731. So, all right. So we'll just, you know, put that on the list with a target of a January start for the discussion. All right. And thank you, Tony. Thank you, Tony. All right. Thanks, everybody. Very helpful on both fronts. Thanks, Tony. Okay. All right. So we've got a public hearing here. Do we have something to be read by the party?

Thank you. Pursuant to Section 3.3. To answer your question, go ahead. Sorry. Pursuant to section 3.3.12.3 subsection B of the town of Grafton subdivision rules and regulations, the planning board will hold a public meeting on Monday, August 10th, 2026. Commencing at 7.30 p.m. in Conference Room A of the Grafton Memorial Municipal Center, 30 Providence Road, to consider the final inspection and determination of completion for Audrina Lane, Brook Street, and Dillon Way as laid out by the Woodland Hill Subdivision Plan. Copy of the application and plan is available for public inspection of the Planning Department and or the Office of Sound Clerk during regular business hours.

I'd like to... just make note of the fact that this Woodland Hill singular subdivision is not the same thing as a much older Woodland Hills plural subdivision. My mistake, thank you. that this proceeding is all about Woodland Hill. All the documentation that I reviewed ahead of the meeting was consistent in correctly referring to it as Woodland Hill, but some of our viewers might live in or remember the Woodland Hills subdivision, so this is not that. Where is it? Woodland Hills is Grainy Drive and a couple of others off of Snow Road.

Okay. Woodland Hill, single. Got it. I don't know, Christian, do you want to open us up? I believe we probably have the applicant here and then there's also some related correspondence so we can kind of work away from you to the applicant to the public.

Sure. So we received the complete determination of completeness application as required in the subdivision rules and regulations. Went through it. I did prepare a memo with my review. And from everything that I found, it's all there. This is in preparation of the roads and related infrastructure being accepted at town meeting. So the developer's on track for that as well. We have the developer here to answer any questions. If there's any questions from the board, we can go over that. But based off of this, we received the application there's 45 days for the board to make their decision complete or incomplete so this is would have this is the the deadline to make the decision but we can go over all that through the public meeting okay questions from the board for Christian comments from the applicant

No comments just to introduce myself a mark Mastroianni Representing Pulte homes. Who's the developer of Woodland Hill?

No, you have to say who you are and Did you say who you are?

Yeah, so I might I might not have been near the speaker. So mark Mastroianni I'm with Pulte homes. Okay. We are the developer of Woodland Hill and And as Christian mentioned, we've been working very closely with the planning department and all the town department heads, staff, fire, police, as well as your peer review, Graves Engineering. And we completed the application, and I think we worked through all the different sign-offs. I think we provided all the different sign-offs from all the different departments, as well as your peer review. And we're here tonight asking for your approval. of the certificate of completeness. Um, you know, and with your approval, we are scheduled with the board of selectmen tomorrow night, um, for their, uh, for their approval or for them to put it on the warrant this fall. And I know they're waiting for your recommendation in order to, for them to act.

All right. Um, if there are no other comments up here, then I think we'll open up to public. If anybody here has a comment or question, give me, Approach the microphone and say your name and address, please. This is public. No? All right.

We did receive some correspondence related to this. Correct. We did. Good evening.

My name is Vivek Anand Hegde. I live in Woodland Hill, 10 Audrina Lane, North Grafton. I concur with what Matt's saying and we've been living there for two and a half, three years now and we find that development being fully complete. At the moment there are a couple of small items here and there which are negligible items we're working through. Most of the work is all done and we're happy that it's being completed to everyone's satisfaction and and the timeline and everything. And we want to thank everyone working on that, especially Pulte and whoever working on that project. We appreciate the help. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And then I guess, back to Michael's point, there was one piece of correspondence from a Mr. Vasudevan asking about some drainage issues on his property. I guess, are you aware of these questions? Or, you know, Christian, if you want to bring us through it.

I can also address it. Please. We received the correspondence, I confirm, with Graves and Tracy, building department, that they're aware of that. Pulte's aware of that. It's either been addressed or it's being addressed, and ultimately that issue is not part of the public way. It's on private property. It's being addressed but should not affect the determination of completeness at this point in time. That's been confirmed with Graves and both, and Tracy.

Okay, yeah, so we can't do anything about it. Actually. I think that correspondence was addressed To down the hall wasn't it?

Um initially it was sent to the planning department email But no, okay Yeah, I'm not aware of that but we have um, it's just it's not in my department but we have a customer relations department who handles and Communication with our homeowners on punch list type of things on the lot like that with their homes and maybe they're a lot I will add that we did get a certificate of compliance from the Conservation Commission already So the Conservation Commission has signed off on all the work as well The key is that it's that issue good or bad is not within our purview for what we're here to do tonight and

We don't get a say so.

Got it.

Any other questions?

The subdivision approval for which we are now being requested to determine its completeness, it covers roadways and utilities and the open space. And from the record, I see that the open space has already been deeded to the town. As for that matter, have the roadways and utilities been deeded to the town, recorded deed?

Well, that's what we're here, through the chair.

Right, the town.

That's why we're here tonight. With your approval, it would move to the Board of Selectmen.

Right, this is for acceptance of that.

For acceptance of the roadways.

And the fall town meeting is shooting for acceptance of the roadways, utilities, and open space.

Well, the open space has already been deeded, but it would be the roadway.

But it's still a town meeting vote to accept the vote on open space, actually.

It would be. I think they did already in the spring. I could be incorrect, but all of... That's possible.

Anyway, I just bring it up because I know that's part of the procedure is to deed it to the town and have the town accept that. I don't off the top of my head remember it being at springtime, but it's either here or there. If it hasn't already been covered, we'll cover it in the fall.

Yeah.

And I'll add it to my open space inventory, which I maintain on behalf of the open space committee. Sure, absolutely.

And I'll look into that as well to make sure that happens.

Yes. I mean, that's not a big thing. Although there have been cases where open space has never been deeded to the town or town has never accepted it, but that's not the issue. That's not. As keeper of the open space inventory, I try to make sure that those I's are dotted and D's are crossed.

Great.

The deed and the street acceptance plans have already been submitted to the town council. In any case, that's not a subject of the board's proceeding tonight. Yes. It's the roadway utilities.

Do we have a motion from someone? Yes. I move to make the determination that all site work has been done in substantial conformance with the approved definitive plan and that this subdivision, Woodland Hill... is deemed complete in accordance with the Town of Grafton subdivision rules and regulations section 3.3.1.1.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Approved unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you for all of your effort through this whole process. I remember many of you from the beginning.

Yep, it's been... Not as many years as some.

Not as many years. Yeah, it went pretty smooth.

It's good to see it finally complete after actually this whole thing started before I was even on the board with the question of Institute Road, not in a public way. Some people will remember that. Some. We resolved that a number of years ago, and even that was more complex than it needed to be. That took years.

Yeah, that was before us. So you worked that all through before we came into the picture.

Thank you very much. Have a great night.

Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you all for your attendance and your interest. Thank you.

All right, so moving back to general business, I think we have some bills.

Move with authorized payment of the bills.

Second. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Passed unanimously. I think we had one minutes from prior meeting.

Move that the minutes of July 27th be approved as drafted with any changes that might come up during discussion of the motion.

Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Minutes are approved. Correspondence? The only thing that stuck out to me was the thing we just discussed. I don't know if anybody else saw something.

No?

No, doesn't seem like it.

Staff report?

Staff report.

Staff report. The Master Plan Implementation Committee is set to be voted on and created tomorrow, so I will get... implemented and we'll implement the master plan just like that but that should happen tomorrow at the select board meeting there's a couple more ad use coming through for site plan approval so that you can look forward to more of those we're completing interviews for the shared admin position in the planning department and conservation So hopefully that will wrap up soon. Then we'll have a full staff. Quality candidates for that? Quality candidates. Perfect. Well done. And as of today, we'll be working on the 48 updates for ZBA starting in January. And so that's all I have to do. Let's just bring that on the record. That's all I had.

Just a question on the Common Traffic Committee. Is the schedule set for the public hearings or anything like that yet, or are you still working on that?

No, you did ask me about that. There's a number of candidates who have expressed interest in joining the committee that are set to be

appointed tomorrow okay so once it's um created fully staffed then the meetings will get set and then i'll confirm if there's a way to be notified of when those meetings are happening yeah i think there's like eight candidates give or take and like three people going to be voted in four i think it was i thought it went to four i think it's four okay still many more people than than is required so it's good that more people are interested yeah

like it when people get involved actually i was interested in the list i think there was at least three police or former police persons a lot of familiar names nice all right any updates from representatives on town committees or cmrpc nothing for me

I think we've got our dose of CMRPC last week. All right.

Move we adjourn.

Second. Moved and seconded. Not debatable. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Nay. Wow. Only did that because I knew it would fail. It passed. Now you have to take a roll call.

The reason I always... You are adjourned.