Planning Board - Regular Meeting

meeting of the Grafton Planning Board to order. We have one of our members and our staff uh remote, so we'll have a roll call from Sure. Uh, Mr. Wood, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Do it. Do you want me to do it? No. No. Do you want me to do the roll call or do you Does Justin want to take it over? I'm happy to do it. Uh, all right. Mr. Wood, present. Mr. Player, present. Mr. Robbins,

present. Mr. Hassinger, I'm here. Mr. Me, I'm here also. Uh, Mr. Delamole is here. And, uh, also joining us, right, is Natalia Outward, correct? On staff. Present. Yes, present. Okay. Natalia is not with us tonight. She is here, but she has H she's on Oh, no. She's there. But no. Um Fiona Fiona is not here at all. Um

good. She get a little time. Uh okay. Um first item is public input. If anybody has anything to say to us about something within our purview that's not otherwise on the agenda tonight, this is your chance. Raise your hand either in the room. there's or from Zoom and I I include even people up here. Yes. Yes. If any of us have something that qualifies as public input and Yeah. Well, that gives you a chance to talk about things that

Yes. you might want to be able to talk about. We might have a few minutes. Might even return to public input if necessary. All right. So, we have no hands raised on Zoom. Uhhuh. No hands raised in the room.

So, we'll move right along to item 2A. uh vote to approve the submission of a draft application for the district local technical assistance DLTA 2026 request for resources for the project project purpose Grafton flexible development incentivization finalization. We have uh Mike Mugum Muggum um uh Brown from CMRPC to help us with this. Go ahead, Mike.

Hi, good evening. Thanks very much. Um the it's it's Mour Brown, by the way. Um the I mean I think that this is probably not new to any of you. Uh this is is to to pick up where we left off with the flexible development uh project. Um because we we needed more information last time round about what the attorney general would think about the Actton uh bylaw which effectively mandates flexible development. That information is is not yet ready. The the attorney general well last time I looked uh which was a couple of days ago has not yet commented on the act and bylaw. Uh so we we need uh some more information and then I believe that we we need to have uh the opportunity to to interact and and really think through perhaps talk through what the options are and and where Grafton wants to go with this process. Uh we also need to look at um the types of incentives that are uh available and and have discussions with you about what kind of of uh incentives you might be interested in entertaining. So what this really is is is simply to uh agree to the request for uh some more money from the DTA fund so that we can can put that project to bed and and

draft whatever type of bylaw uh you as a board decide would be appropriate. either either something new or or or minor amendments to your existing bylaw. Um but but we need to have some discussions about what you want to to do with that. So that's that's what we're looking for. The process is simply um that there needs to be a letter of commitment signed by somebody who who is authorized to sign that. If if Fiona is authorized to sign that, she can do that when she gets back. The meeting I mean the closing date for this is December the 10th. Uh so we need a letter signed by somebody before December the 10th and then uh we'll also ask Fiona if she wouldn't mind um attending the the physical development committee meeting on Zoom so that she is available to assist in answering any questions that the the members of the physical development committee might have. And uh Bob, you have many more years of experience of the physical development committee and the DTA process than I have. So uh you might want to to elaborate uh more than I can. Um thank you.

If anybody has any questions, I can tell you about it. I've been there since it started, voted on all the money. It's usually pretty well structured. Um, depends on how much we're asking for, of course, but I, you know, I'd say let's ask any question.

Yep. Assuming based on what we discussed the last time the board discussed this, I think the I'm I would assume that the board is interested in pursuing this and therefore that uh I would move that the board approve the submission of the draft application for DTA for the aforementioned project. Second. Moved and second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. Roll call. Right. Mr. Wood. I.

Mr. Polmo. I. Mr. Hassinger. I. Mr. Robbins. I. Mr. Damaley Mozai. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thanks. We'll look forward I'll be looking forward to seeing this along with what I hear is a long list of requests this time. People are beginning to catch on. Yeah. Okay. And we'll look forward to seeing this work completed sometime during the year. Mhm. It will take however long it takes. Indeed. Just about that. Okay. Thank Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Mike.

Thank you. All right. That brings us to um special permit 2025-11 SPA and site plan approval um for 42 Browns Road. We closed that hearing. So we have a draft decision. Does anybody have has everybody looked at the draft decision?

Yes, I've read through the graph decision and I have no comments on it. Looks good to me. Well, well, does anybody else have anything? Just as a reminder to the board, there was some updates to this since this was first posted on Friday that came today to us and those changes are in blue on the screen here that's being shared. Nothing that I reviewed it and I don't have any further comments though.

No comments. I have no comments. This is the room. Okay. Um, I'll move that the board grant the decision with favorable findings granting the requested waiverss and with all the conditions all as drafted. Second. Moved and that a member of the board be authorized the chair be chair be authorized to sign on behalf of the board. The chair mentioned to me that he would prefer to not be the one to sign and I'm willing to come in.

Okay. So member, so the motion then will read Mr. Wood be authorized to sign on behalf of the board. Second. Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. Roll call. Mr. Hassinger. I. Mr. Wood. I. Mr. Polmo I. Mr. Robbins I. Mr. Damy votes I.

Motion carries unanimously. That brings us to to C uh request for uh a decision on uh special permit SP2025-12 SPA and site plan approval. Nine Miriam Road. We uh I think we closed that hearing. Yes, we did. We have a draft decision. We do. And like the prior one, this also was edited today. Mhm. The one that's currently online. Any comments about it?

I have a couple of comments here.

Oh, go for it. So looking at finding F8, this is not a major issue, but for clarification, the finding as written states that the aerials on the G GIS, assuming that means aerial imagery incorrectly show the driveway. In fact, the aerial imagery available on us shows the correct location of the driveway, but it is the the driveway location as shown on the town GIS in the absence of the aerial imagery is out of date. So my I suggest a minor change in wording to read the town GIS incorrectly shows the driveway on the east side etc etc etc. The driveway was relocated to the left of the home etc and the town GIS is outdated and a note was made to that effect. So, I think that uh it's probably worth clarifying that it's

it's not the aerial imagery that's out of date. It's the sketch of the driveway location that's shown on the town GIS. So, everybody agree that's a good idea? Yep. Natalia, did you get that? Yes, I got it. Paul said okay. Yep. If you want, you can run that by me after the meeting or, you know, tomorrow whenever you get it revised to make sure that you know if if I have anything confusing. And the other No, I got it. But I'll send you the um I'll send you the copy before I have somebody uh before I have Justin sign it. How's that?

Yeah. The the next finding I want to mention is F15. And this is just kind of a kind of a minor point, but the board does not have a a policy as such uh re regarding the accessory apartment remaining in the family or anything. Uh it might be depending on exactly what this is meant to refer to. Uh the board's past practice has been that the accessory apartment be uh limited to family occupancy,

right? Some policy would be considered to be or people wouldn't be looking for something that was written down and voted. Yeah. The the board has no farm formal policy with this. So just to clarify, Mr. Robins, I think this change was in effect from something I suggested at at the last public hearing on this subject where the in the spring the applicant is likely to transfer ownership of the primary property Yep. to their son and they want to be able to do the construction and everything without having to refile and wait, you know, extra days and such. So, yeah. And I think that's that's that's pretty clearly conveyed by the remainder of the text in this finding.

It's just that the word policy is inappropriate here practice and so custom and and in fact in this case here this is this isn't really referring to the board's past past practice. This is more related to the applicant's request that they be allowed to transfer ownership within the family without voiding the special permit and most of the rest of this finding I think makes that sufficiently clear. It you come back to this in condition C5. Mr. Chair, Natalyia does have her hand back up.

Yes, Natalia. I just wanted to clear um do you want it to say practice or do you want it to just say the applicant agreed that the accessory apartment remain will remain in the family? I think that would be good. The way you just stated it the applicant agreed that the accessory apartment will remain in the family. Yeah, because this this is not something that has come up in past applications. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. And then if everybody's comfortable with that, nobody has anything else. I want to go to C5. And there I think the uh the wording seemed to me be to be a little bit awkward. Let me the intent is sufficiently clear, but I would propose simplifying the wording a little bit to say the special permit and site plan approval runs with the land provided that ownership remains within the family of the applicant. Otherwise, the special permit and site plan approval becomes null and void in which case the new owner must complete a new application to the board to use the space as an accessory apartment. Sounds okay.

Sounds appropriate to me. I'm fine with that. Natalia, you okay? Yes. And and just to be clear, so if they did not go through that process, then it just becomes another room in a single family house. Correct.

Correct. And this and this is consistent with all of our accessory apartment special permits is that when the when the property is sold, the permit for the accessory apartment ceases to exist, the uh the accessory apartment effectively becomes a part of the home. Although it's obviously in all all likelihood still configured as an accessory apartment, the new owner, should they want to use it as an accessory apartment, Yeah. brings a special permit application to us. Yeah.

And again, this is this is the board's past practice. It's not it's not defined in any any board policy, but that fact is sort of irrelevant here. We just want to, you know, here we're just stating how we want this to work. I think that's good enough. This is going to get more complicated now with ADUs um when they get stirred into the mix. Yep. And Natala has her hand up again. Natalya. Natalia. I just wanted to point out that C6 kind of covers what Greg was just talking about. Yes.

Yep. Thanks. Yeah.

Anything further, Mr. Robins? That's That's all I had. Anybody else? If not, we could have a motion. Someone's got to make a motion, don't they? Dave. All right. I will I will move that the board grant this special permit and site plan approval with favorable findings granting all requested waiverss and all the conditions as drafted with the changes noted during this discussion and that Mr. Wood be authorized to sign on behalf of the board. Second.

Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion hearing? None. Roll call. Mr. Hassinger. Hi, Mr. Wood. I Mr. Polarmo. I Mr. Robbins. I Mr. Delamole votes I. Motion carries unanimously.

And Mr. Chair, just to say out loud, I know we have at least one member of the Sherry family on on the call listening in. Just wanted to say that I will likely be signing this on Wednesday for the staff and once that is complete they can they'll be reaching out and confirming the next steps and how the process works is my understanding. Okay. I guess it's okay. All right. Um correspondence Nothing on correspondence. Nothing caught my eye.

Uh, reports from planning board representatives on town committees and CMRPC. I've been busy up there as usual at CMRPC. Does anybody have anything?

Uh, yes. the uh the open space and recreation committee to which I am the board's representative held a meeting last week. Not there's not really a lot to report out of that except that um sort of following up on the town's designation of the Oakmont Farms open space 27 Milford Road as land under the control of the conservation commission. The committee is continuing to look at other instances where the town may wish to designate formally designate land as conservation land. We have identified eight subdivision open space land. Some of them are multiple parces, but eight subdivisions where the open space was to have been designated as conservation land, but the documentation of that never actually happened. So these eight are they're all identified as open space, but in no case were they officially restricted to use as conservation or recreation or open space. So we are in the process of putting together a recommendation that for these eight parcels that the town probably town meeting vote to place them under control of the conservation commission uh or otherwise protect them as open space or recreation land. uh we're asking suggesting that the recreation commission should be should look at those to identify any recreational opportunities that might exist on that land. And for future reference, we'd

like to make sure that whenever subdivision land is intended to become open conservation land, say I think in all these cases except possibly one it was under flexible development that that often hasn't been followed through in the past. So we want we would like it we we'd like to make sure that in the future land that's supposed to become conservation land actually does but we've got we've got some recommendations. Then we've also look we've also identified two parcels of tax title land that the conservation commission has suggested should be placed under control of the conservation commission since in both cases they abut existing conservation land. So the open space and w committee is going to have some recommendations that will more than likely come up at the May town meeting.

Has has the tax title land come into town possession? Yes. In all in all cases of the ones we looked at the eight subdivision open space and the two tax title lands they are all owned by the town.

Okay. It's just that the town has not formally given them the protection from development that they ought to have. You can talk about we we can someday talk about some of the subdivision land that should have been donated to the town but never was. There's still some some loose ends there. All this has you goes back to the maybe back to the late 80s certainly into the 90s. that uh yeah somehow between all the boards that get involved in these someone somewhere along the line has dropped the ball and eight times

not not made sure that things were fully properly properly protected as conservation land. So, we're trying to catch up on all that. You know, we didn't, you know, we put in the flexible what 90 spring of 91 91. Um, and that's where most of this comes from. Um, indeed. What did I just think of? So, that's what the open space rec committee has been doing lately.

Um, does anybody else have any reporting? And maybe here we can pick it up. I've seen postings about a new whatever it is fitness thing here someplace around the end of the senior center. It's on the end of the senior center where the barbecues where the barbecues used to be. Cuz I looked tonight I guess that had to be it but when I came in I didn't I didn't catch it uh in the dark. But uh anyway, people apparently everyone's trying to let everyone know about this

this new uh capability. Does anybody know the story enough to tell some of it? Okay. The the extent that I know is Blue Cross Blue Shield put in some money toward the to the development and building of that. I don't know how much or what percentage. Okay. And they did a ribbon cutting ceremony recently. Yes. Yeah. There was there was in my Facebook there was a whole lot of fuzz. Yeah. Um okay. All we have left are the two hearings.

Yeah. Um, yes. No, no bills, no minutes, no staff report unless Nalia wants to give us her view of a staffed report. Just plugging along, trying to keep up with um what's going on in the office until Fiona gets back. Um, I did notice that the posting for the new admin did go on uh online just so that in case you're wondering. So maybe we'll be able to hire somebody in the next so many weeks or whatever. Okay. Well,

and we have about three minutes. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe two and a half, but um three minutes. Um never rely on the watch. Um 3 minutes. We'll uh just take a break for three minutes. Smoke them if you got them.

Just not in here. Right. That's a public meeting, not a hearing.

Thank you. We still need the uh Yes. Yeah. Doesn't hurt even if we don't have to. Exactly. That's why I was leading toward also reading it the next meeting that we actually Get the recording. Good. Just get practicing. Well, I say it this time and I'll make Greg do it next time. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, there you go. Hey, Greg, did you hear that?

What am I saying next time? Probably the TU's hearing notice or meeting notice because that one requests a continuence. Yeah, I'm still going to read it. All right, so that's next time. I'll still read it today, but we probably should just read it. I don't know if we need to, but like 30 seconds, I think. 10 seconds.

Your timer is better than mine. Mhm. Well, the internet. I I rely on the internet. So do I, but I don't have seconds.

Oh, well, you have one of those. So, no, that's a that's a proper kind of um Okay, we're back in session. We're about to take up item uh 6A, which is the request for a project plan review PPR 2025-03 um at seven jumbo path, trustees of Tus College, aka Tus University. Excuse me. So, the Grafton Planning Board will hold a public meeting on Monday, November 24th, 2025, commencing at 7:30 p.m. in conference room A at the Grafton Memorial Municipal Center, 30 Providence Road, Grafton, Mass, to consider an application for a project plan review for the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tus University, pursuant to sections 9.6.1.2 two of the Grafton zoning bylaw for the construction of a coming school learning center building on property located at 7 Jumbo's path as shown as Grafton assesses map 21 lots 1A 100A 101A and 102A said property is located in an office light industrial OI and campus development overlay CDO zoning district the applicant owner is TUS is trustees of TUS College aka Tus University. Copies of the application and plan are available for public inspection at the planning department during regular business hours or on the town of Grafton website at www.grafton-mma.gov on the planning department development projects web page.

The applicant has requested that the public meeting be continued to December 8th, 2025. uh exhibit five on the project page. This will allow time for the planning director to have written the review memo and for Jeff Walsh of Graves Engineering to have hopefully provided the board with a peerreview report. The peer review funds have been received and Jeff is starting his review process. We need to vote to continue the public meeting until December 8th at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. Chair, I move that the board grant the public grant the the written continuation request of J to December 8th, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Roll call. Mr. Polarmo. I. Mr. Wood. I Mr. Hassinger I Mr. Robbins I Mr. votes I

motion carries unanimously. We'll see them next time. Okay, that brings me to 6B. Request for site plan approval SPA 2025-04 9 and12 West Street Adilla Investments LLC uh slash Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester as the applicant and the owner. Pursuant to section 1.3.3 of the town of Grafton zoning bylaw, the planning board will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 24th, 2025 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 a child care/dayare center on property located at 9 and 12 West Street and shown as graph assessors map 74, lots 25 and 31. said property is located in residential R40 and residential multif family RMF zoning districts. The applicant is ADA Investments LLC and the owner is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester. A copy of the application materials is available for public inspection at the planning department during regular business hours or on the town of Grafton website at www.grafton-mma.gov on the planning department development projects web page. Okay, Natalia, I could read the notes that you gave me or maybe and as uh what assistant planner maybe you want to do that.

Sure. Um so the applicant Priyanka Jooshi will be attending. She's in the audience and she'll be presenting the application and answer any questions. The architect Jessica Cargal is also attending but she's attending via Zoom. So a memo was provided by the planning director Fiona. It's listed as exhibit 5 on the project page and the applicant submitted a written response today to all the planning director's questions and issues and that is listed as exhibit 9 on the uh project page. So I think um Priyanka is already said she'll be able to present the application. Thank you Natalia. Uh thank you everyone for giving us the opportunity to be here today and um looking at our application. Um I am Priyanka Jooshi. That's my husband Hesh Jooshi. We both um own Kitty Time in Malboro. We have been running the center for last eight years and we always wanted to expand our business and um Grafton is one of the towns that we really like. We live close to it. We live in Northboro so it's only 25 minutes for us. Um we came across the listing for the Roman Catholic Church and it is a perfect building for converting into a childcare center. It has enough space outside to make playgrounds. It is close to the town center, close to residential areas. So that's why we are interested in that building and we were hoping to uh do the renovation and turn it into a childcare center.

Do you have any questions for us? Mr. Chair, Sure. Um I I'm looking at your site plan that uh that your uh that your architect did. Yes.

Um it it's uh don't get me wrong, I think you what you're going to do here is going to be great. It's going, you know, great for the town and everything like that, but your site plan is not even close to being close to to to really anything. I mean, um, you know, we we just dealt with a with a another, uh, child care center and, um, you don't show any places where you you're going to drop off children. Uh, there's there's no there's no design or no no narrative that shows where you're going to turn around. Like, if you drive up West Street and you drop off someone at the at the door, there's no place to turn around. There is actually two documents that are uploaded. There is a exhibit two I believe. Um that is a Yes. So, uh this one if you

Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. Okay, that's exactly what I'm looking at. I was looking at a different one on the screen because I had a site plan which is exhibit three and then I was Yeah, this one.

Yeah. Yeah, that's that's exactly what I'm looking at. So, for example, your proposed co crosswalk right there is not attaching. It's attaching to the sidewalk, but that needs a handicap that needs a handicap access to that sidewalk. That needs to be shown on the plans and that needs to be detailed on the other side of the of the sidewalk on the lefthand side of the of the crosswalk. That's grass. So, you're not connecting to the parking lot at that point. You're just connecting to grass. So, uh someone's going to have to walk across either walk out in the road or walk across the grass to get over there. If you drive up West Street, uh there's also no handicap spots shown that it says three handicap two handicap spots.

Oh, there they are right there. Yep, there they are. Right there. I'm sorry. So, if you your How is your process going to work? Are you going to drive up? Are the parents going to drive up West Street and then drop off where it says walkway to entrance? So, our hope was that pe people if they're coming on the church street, they can turn into the turn left into the parking lot from the church street park there. Yeah. And then they can use the crosswalk to cross over to the existing sidewalk and use that to get into the building. Okay. I believe that's what currently people do to get into the church as well. It it is it is how they get into the church in the rain and the snow and everything else. That's how it's done. Right.

So, but but what I'm saying is about that the crosswalk that you have right there, right? There are no details shown as I mean at all. So, they so I think you just have to be a little bit more detailed on on that and how handicapped people are going to get to get into the building. Okay. Okay. So, get into the building. Um can I ask my architect Jessica who's online to just Jessica questions on that. Jessica has her hand raised so Okay, perfect. Go for it. I think she's prepared to answer this maybe or speak to it. Anyway, Jessica, Jessica,

I don't know if you hopefully you can hear me. Okay. Um, at this point, this is a con, you know, conceptual overview of the space um and of the of the of the um the site. Um we are we will be having a full um site plan done of the space because but because of the time limit we have the the other exhibit that you had exhibit three up the site plan the older one up and then once we get sort of further along in the process that will be a a full site plan with the extensive amount of more information than we're showing right Now, um so we were showing sort of what was today and sort of slight changes um in a conceptual way to see what the how the the board would respond to that um and how we could accommodate um kitty time as well. So um I agree it is light right now in detail. Um we we we do plan on going further. We just the the biggest decision that we need to see is if this is even a plausible change of use before we go into getting different engineers involved in this whole whole spot. So,

Mr. Chair, yes. Oh, I think it's a plausible use. I think it's a great use. Okay. But but but here here's the thing. You have to be a lot more detailed than how you are. And maybe a and maybe you know we have a uh you know this is for site plan approval. Um you know you haven't purchased the property yet I'm assuming. Yes, we have and you're trying to find out whether you want to purchase purchase the property without spending in our

I understand you just you're a little you're a little early to the to the you know to the game here. Um, but uh I mean I personally I think it's a great use for the piece of property. I think I think it'll work, but you need a lot more detail on your plans before you can you know get a site plan approval. That's for sure. We procedurally we couldn't give a site plan approval with what we have. Uh we have to have a proper full

site plan. Um, at the very least, um, sometimes what you're trying to accomplish can be accomplished by just having a meeting with us without an application and so on for a for a permit. In any case, you're here. Um, we we'll we'll see how many of the public out there have something to say about this. So many people sitting out there. Yeah. Um, I'm interested. How many students are we talking about? We are trying to get a license for 81 children.

81. Okay. And I'm curious. I I don't know the inside of the building very well. But I I I thought I remembered that in the sanctuary, the main the main room. I thought that was sloped. Mm- No, it's flat floor and just a raised. It's level and and so all of the pews in the in the church actually work on a on a uh on a track and they can all open up and they go right into a uh what you considered a big closet. All of the all of the pews and it makes a hall. That actually works out great for you guys. You know, that's u Okay. cuz I saw the the the plan seemed to show,

you know, that there was a flat floor there. Yeah, there is. Yeah. All those pews go right into the blue closet. Yeah. Yeah. I I think that uh well, every everybody looks like everybody is happy. Um but um we we couldn't you know we'd have to deny it if this was all the information we had. So you may want to either well ask to continue until you have a plan or maybe withdraw.

I I think we have to keep in mind that this is a do amendment. Yes. And what that means is that we are permitted to regulate specifically only the bulk and height of structures, yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking, and building coverage. We cannot regulate anything else under the do amendment. So this is basically a it's pretty much a guaranteed approval under the do amendment and the board has to be cognizant of that in terms of thinking about what additional information we want to request.

One thing to that I just want to add and bring to board's knowledge is also that the only changes we are doing in the building is going to be inside the building. Yeah. We are not planning at this point to do any outdoor changes in the building. So, we are not going to touch the parking lot or touch the um any grass area or any outside lighting. That was part of the reason we were hoping that we can use this conceptual design to get the site plan approval and not go for a full site plan.

Yeah. And one of the re the waiver document that we had submitted, we had asked for specifically for a waiver for a site plan. Um because site plan involves the landscape and everything outside. But we are hoping that since we're only doing renovation inside the building, we are showing everything that we're planning to do inside the building and not touch anything outside. Um that we can use the documents that we have today to and give you all the details that you need in person for different other things or other questions. What's the wish of the board members? Mr. Chair's hand. We have hands up.

Go Natalia. I just wanted to mention that um the applicant has met on several occasions and discussed the plans uh prior to filing with the board and the meetings included the building commissioner and the planning director. Yeah.

So, Mr. share my my comments. Number one, yes, do amendment makes this not really something that is that that relevant, but al I do have some concerns on how traffic will be on Church Street and how the drop off will go. Like I said, the do amendment that's not really going to the thing, but this is a general thing. I don't have any concerns on the intersections. I think those you the traffic patterns in those intersections are high enough that this isn't going to really affect it. But I the actual how the traffic flows like Mr. Reed was mentioning is going to be something that I'm interested in in having the narrative of how it goes. I'm also not my memory says West Street is a private way right now.

It is a dead end road. Yes. Yeah. So I'm not sure how much our decision can impact or like how the traffic flow is involved on West Street itself as far as anyone driving up in West Street. Right. It is actually I don't want to interrupt you but I just wanted to add that it is actually a really good thing for us or for the building that it is on West Street and it's a dead end street because we want that road to be less traffic so the kids when they're crossing that crosswalk they're not crossing a busy road. Yeah. Understood.

Um and agreed. and people can come in. There are three um three entrances to that parking lot on 9 west. There is one from the west street and two from the church street. So there is enough space that people can either come in to the west street, take a left, get into the parking lot and get out into the church street out of the two other exits or they can even come in from the church street uh get into the exit and get into the parking lot. There are two ways to get in and take a like a ride out of the vest and get out then that way.

Absolutely. One thing that that does bring me to one of my points I was about to say as well is that parking lot when it was operating as a church during church service it would generally be packed like sardines so to speak where people would just pull in there some people would pull up on the on the grass BMS I have seen and it was

like if you get stuck in the middle of there you have to wait till pretty much almost everyone else around you leaves in order for you to be a pull away and that my memory says a lot of those parking line, you know, parking space lines have pretty much completely faded. So one thing that I would want definitely want to see as far as doing a site plan approval for my you myself here is the actual you know spaces laid out as you know a full site plan so we can actually see you do have this number of space you do have the driving radiuses you to to pull in and out of that parking lot the entrances you want the I am concerned about the the crossing you the crossing itself being you know for handicap accessible and into a a grass sperm. So, you know, those are some concerns I have. I think I think this is a great use. I don't think I could vote to approve the site plan I have in front of me tonight.

So, if we look at the other document, the exhibit two um that was up earlier in the parking lot. Would you like to say something, Mr. Chairman? But if I didn't hear Dave say anything about approving parking lots or crosswalks or any of that. I think whatever approval we give would specifically outline the things that we were uh acting on.

The my takeaway of it, Mr. Mr. Robbins, Mr. sure you can tell me if I'm wrong. Knowing that there is adequate parking for appropriately dedicated spaces is something that we still are allowed by

the do amendment allows us to regulate parking and we have in front of us a diagram showing the layout of the parking lot the main parking lot and the staff only parking lot to the right of this picture. I believe I read in the narrative a a an explanation of the number of parking spots that employees would be expected. The total number of parking spots you have, the number of parking spots expected to be occupied by employees, the number of parking spots expected to be occupied by you know parents dropping off and picking up

definitely have more parking than we would require. So we need as per the bylaws for Grafton, we are required to have one parking spot per employee. We will have on a busiest day at the biggest shift, we will have a maximum of 20 employees. So we have 20 spaces for employees and for children for during the drop off and pickup hours. We usually just need one parking spot for our five children. Our drop off is staggered between 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. or 4 to 5:30 p.m. And we based on that our calculations, we only needed 35 parking spots and we have 53. So I think the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the zoning bylaws parking requirements for this. And again going back to the allowable regulations under the door GDOV amendment the structure isn't changing

so there's no issue with the bulk and height of structures yard sizes that's not changing setbacks and those are all I I think that's somewhere in here. It's It's it's noted that the setbacks meet zoning requirements. Open space. There's really nothing nothing about that that needs to be dealt with here. Building coverage requirements. I think this falls within the zoning bylaws and I' I'd have to recheck numbers on it, but since the building is not changing, I think that's covered. So I think in terms of what the board is allowed to regulate under dover the applicant has demonstrated compliance with what they need to comply with. Um other aspects of this uh you know the applicant is offering is is proposing a crosswalk. Um the do amendment doesn't allow us to regulate that. Uh however that would fall under whatever general requirements the building inspector or some other laws may have regarding particularly regarding handicapped access. Those details are are covered by other laws and whatever we say you're also as you as I'm sure you know you're obligated to comply with all other applicable laws and regulations. So, as far as I can tell, although we're interested in more details um in terms of what the board is allowed to regulate, I don't know that we're missing any information. Okay, before we go too much further, is there anyone

here? No. Or out on the internet who wants to comment on this? raise your hand. Now, I don't see any hands. We have only one Zoom attendee and he's not raising his hand. So, Ry, what do you think? Well, you know, I understand what what uh what Dave's saying. Um, you know, but if if you look at this, if you look at the other site plan, the original or the from uh wherever it is. Go to the go to the other site plan.

2004 or something like that. Yeah, something like that. It's not I mean it's not showing the parking lot, so

it's again I don't you know I don't know. Um well, let's put it this way. I don't think there's anywhere close to being enough detail on this piece of on this site plan to uh you know for the board to vote on it, but that's that's my opinion. This site plan here that is that is uh Roman Catholic bishop you know shows the church, shows the rectory, shows a a shed and shows a um it doesn't show the parking lot. It doesn't show the spaces. It doesn't show a crosswalk. It doesn't show the road. it it doesn't show really anything. So again, I understand what Dave's talking about. Um, if you approve this as as it as it's shown, hopefully the building department or who else somebody else is going to review this and make not make you, but but have them revise their site plan. And again, I understand what you're doing. you'll see. And if you can buy this, if this is going to work and you want to buy this piece of property, I would take a shot at that. But that's uh I would go for it. But is there's just not enough detail here?

You know, the crosswalk, it goes into a grass. Where does it go from there? You know, how do how do the people get to the parking lot? If if you look at that, if you look at that and you say, "Okay, well, they're going to go right into the parking." Well, now he loses his parking space. So, there's there's a bunch of stuff. Just I would like to see the applicant come back with a little more detail on the plan and go from there. You know, I not that I want them I I want push people off two weeks or anything like that, but I find it very hard to be able to approve this like that.

Yeah. I at least for me when I see site plan approval and this one that's on the screen right now exhibit 3 from 2004 is the only one that has any measurements at all. Correct. I think we need at least something that shows like Mr. for me to say the parking lots like if you know what's actually there right now and I don't need a ton of detail. You know, I would like a ton of detail, but I don't need a ton of detail. But I I think this not showing the parking lots or any and the other one not having any measurement at all is and not even any property line.

Yeah, exactly. Is a is a concern. I'm I'm thinking along the lines that a decision that says here are the things that we looked at and approve um you know aligned with what Dave outlined. Yep. and uh contingent on these things

and well we find whatever the things are uh based on the material presented and make it very clear where we're not doing approval the full site plan approval that we would in a in a normal case. Um so that we you know we've said what we're talking about here.

Yeah. We sometimes in fact we fairly typically do something sort of along that line in a very limited sense where we have decisions that say this decision does not approve any signage associated with the project. So it's putting it it's it's explaining what this decision is approving and what it's not approving. This shall not be construed as approving, you know, any any anything with respect to a crosswalk is not to take that as one example that if you know if we were to think of this as a as as an approval that's strictly limited by the do amendment, then it helps I think it would help as Bob suggested to be to be explicit about what what this decision is not approving or disapproveving. Mhm.

That this decision doesn't speak, for example, if we want to take that that particular point of view, we would want to say this decision does not speak to the crosswalk. We could, you know, say sort of a file. We could request that the board be supplied with additional information as a sort of as a condition of approval. But, uh, you know, in terms of what we're actually allowed to approve, yeah, if nothing else, I think I I'd have to agree with Bob that we would want we would want to be very clear about what we are and are not including in the approval. Yeah. This is kind of complicated. The crosswalk goes across a private way. Yeah.

So, I don't know how the rules apply. Private way, but I don't know. I'm not aware that it's a private way. It is a private way. the court decided when we uh Yeah, that came up in a previous thing. It doesn't say that on on the on the sign. It doesn't say private. No, it doesn't. It doesn't matter. Um we had if you'd like to go back through a few years of litigation um about it doesn't say it on the side about a subdivision that wanted to build off the end of this road continuing into the Yes. into the woods. Yes, it was. um you you'll find out all about that. But but the thing the thing is is that prior to you purchasing this property,

you're going to do a site plan, correct? A full site plan. We have to do the Is that the altar survey and everything that we have? Yeah, you have to do Yeah, you have to do a total survey. You have to show the everything that's on the plans and everything that prior to you purchasing it. Yes. Because otherwise you can't purchase it off what's sitting right there. And that's why we're just trying to do things in parallel because that's the bank working on the attorneys doing the title inspection, then the altar survey and everything. But again, we also want to make sure from the church perspective, close the building so we know it's a feasible project. We can move forward with it. And that's why basically But that's their problem, not our

No, no, I understand that. But what I'm saying is if you're going to do the if you have to do the the full site plan to purchase the building,

I I don't know what the It would probably be probably not be inappropriate for us as a board to get the advice of council on how we want to treat this too. I mean, I think I understand correctly what we need to do under the Dover amendment. It would be helpful to have council either confirm that or explain what more we could do. Okay, that means you'd want to request a continuation of the hearing while we get our staff to contact our council and get some advice on this do

situation and what whether what we're talking about. I think probably most of us certain from this conversation I think most of us would be interested in seeing more detail a more detailed site plan and detail about the cross but whether whether whether we can let that influence our decision is another question right but I think my sense here is that the board is re really wants to approve this just want to make sure that we've got all our eyes dotted and tees crossed We should be able to put staff to work on this over the next couple weeks.

In in any case, and I have to, you know, I find myself reminding reminding myself and others about this pretty much every time. In any case, if we were to close the hearing tonight, there would be no decision available until two weeks from tonight anyway. So in a case in in cases where things are maybe a little bit up in the air,

staff can proceed to work on a decision, we can keep the hearing open just in case something pops up that needs needs further clarification. But in there's a good chance that in two weeks, one way or the other, in two weeks, the board would be likely would be ready to vote on a decision and approve the project. I with the holiday and with some of the staff being out right now, I would not bet on a decision being ready to vote on even if no other information is necessary.

Yeah, I'm I'm not sure how we get council that quickly um given the who's where when uh and the holidays and whatnot. Um that said it does sound I think my I like my plan. Well, you always lick your plan. Unlike you who never does, right?

No, I don't. So, so the No. So the the thing is is that we we contact council to give us a ruling on the do amendment and uh and then um they can they will change if they have to change their site plan based on that. I just want to get that straight. That's that's what I'm understand. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. They if they ask us if they ask to continue then there's an option. If council says we do need more or or we can ask for more then they'll have the opportunity to do that within this hearing. If we close the hearing tonight, if he says we need more, they have to start it over with a new hearing because once the hearing's closed, we can't reopen it and bring in more uh information.

Uh seemed like it would be the best path forward would be to continue the hearing. The only question is the date. We could continue it to December 8th at which point there Natala um um Fiona gets back when Fiona I think be back next week. Monday. Monday. Yeah, next Monday. So So she'll have how long with all of this? Two Monday. So she has she would have a week. She have five days. Five. That's not that not

that's probably not enough time to get in, but you never know. Yeah. So, I think the for the applicants the our next meeting is December 8th. The next meeting after that is December 22nd. If you if you ask to continue the hearing, you'll you'll have to verbally ask us, you know, that you want to continue and then you got a form to fill out if you do to continue the to continue the hearing to whichever date you select. We can even look into the next year's calendar if you want. And then if you say December 8th and we don't have the information back yet, you can always, you know, send an email to the staff saying I wish to continue to December 22nd because we have nothing else to do right now basically. Okay.

And you So either way you can continue, you know, the board typically grants continuation requests. I haven't been on here and one has been denied. Never. But so if we say let's continue it for December 8th, um how would we know if we if the board has everything that they wanted? We will reach out to Natalia and ask if she staff could be in touch with you back and forth and Okay. Yeah, I can. Yeah, you'll communicate with staff as as needed to determine. Okay. So let's continue for December 8th. So yeah, like I said, you want us to say that, right? Yes. believe it request was the

Yeah, we want we want you to say that and then we want you to fell out. Okay. Again, it seems seems clear that the board would like to approve this. We just want to make sure that we've got all our eyes dotted and te that we have the information that we we I want to say we have the information we need but you know it's kind of goes potentially beyond that that there's some information that that we are interested in but may not influence our decision at all. Makes sense. But still we'd like to know the more we know about it the better. Yeah. what we know then the town knows and that's not bad. Yeah. So, Mr. Chair,

yes. I move that the board accept and grant the applicants written request to continue this hearing until December 8th, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. Second. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. Roll call. Mr. Polmo. I. Mr. Hassinger. me. Yes. Yes. Mr. Robbins. Hi, Zel votes. I

motion carries unanimously. Okay. Um you right now you said you were in Marboro. North. Oh, North live in North. Our schools in Malboro. My my I was thinking about going through this in Marboro. I you know that's a city right and uh no North Borough is okay. Um well you know it's not Graptton but it's still okay. Well we'll we'll see where we are in two weeks and Sure. We'll just figure out do I bring this back? Yeah I can call with you. I I can give it to you.

So we're done with that. I don't think there are any other lawful um uh anything else may lawfully come before us. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is that your is that your book right there? No, it's not actually. Oh, it was already there. Oh, I move we adjourn. Second. Moved and seconded that we adjourn. That's not aable. Mr. Polmo. I Mr. Wood. I Mr. Hassinger. I Mr. Robbins. All right, Mrs. Damali votes I. We are ajourned.