Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right, I'll call this U Monday, December 22nd, 2025 meeting of the Grafton Planning Board to order. First thing we have to do a roll call. Who's going to do the roll call? I can. Okay, hold on just a second. I'm I got a text from Fiona saying that she can't hear us. Are you Are you uh Are you hearing us now, Fiona? Yeah, all set now. Okay. All right.

So on Zoom we have our associate member Ray me present and our staff Fiona Coughlin present and in the room Mike present. I am here Dave present. And Mr. Hasser I'm here too.

Okay. Um, at this point we get to where we have a chance for public input. If anyone has something they want 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 or on the web. I don't see any hands. Moving right along. Oh, um Fiona, explain to me about 2A uh versus um 6A. There was a note and I wasn't quite sure what you were saying about taking I think it was taking 2A now or later.

Oh yes. Um well it was just an option for the board um how they wanted you know however you wanted to handle it. if you wanted to do the request for the determination of minor modification now or if you wanted to do it um during the hearing or wait till the hearing is closed. I don't know what procedurally is better. Um it it's not really a hearing, is it? Is it a meeting? This is just an action item. It's pertains to the toughs project, but I was thinking it probably makes sense to open the hearing and then vote, but I'm don't know if it's it actually matters. Maybe Natalya knows something that I don't. But I don't know about open the hearing. The hearing's been open.

Right. Not open the hearing, but the hearing. The problem is we're going to be vamping, I think, um, until that point. But, uh, I feel like we ought to be in the hearing when we it's related, if I'm understanding it correctly. Yeah, I actually never dealt with this particular situation before, but I think just out of an abundance of caution, yeah, wait until 7:30 when we continue the um hearing for TUS. I think that might make sense.

There's pretty much no chance of that be being a problem. There's maybe a small chance of doing it the other way. So that brings me along to the release of Shorty uh for the writings.

You want to tell us anything first? Uh Fiona?

No. I think um the meeting materials pretty much cover this. Um the there's already a bond or sorry a tripartite agreement in place that the board voted on um at a recent meeting. So now there's two forms of shity that are uh covering section one. Um there's no need for that. Um as long as there's some sort of uh some shity in place, then the um the bond with the number um PR2748930 can can be uh released. So, um there's already um the protections are in place and um we just don't need to have um both a performance bond and a tripartite agreement.

Yeah. As I recall at our last meeting, I think it was our last meeting, you know, we approved the tripartate agreement and we recognized that the uh the bond that has been in existence prior to the tripartate agreement no longer needs to be in place and you know so we said well we we'll put it on this meeting as an action item so that we can vote on it. Okay. Correct. Name rank and ser No. Yeah, you have to tell the

Yeah. Steve and Kaza um public writings. Um yes, we had a we had a trip party agreement on the West Bro side and we didn't have enough room so we did a bond with with Grafton um to cover the first phase and then we got a reduction in our bond in West Bro. So now we had extra room so that we can incorporate a trip party agree with you. We have the same triparty agreement in Westbrow and now we have

we added phase two with your bond together. So now we have phase two and phase one and phase two. And then we did that with the intent that we would get the bond with the insurance company released and that's what we asked for last week and we're asking for you to vote on it this week. So Fiona, we're okay doing this. Is that what you're telling me? Yes. Yes. I move we're we're fine. I will move the board approves the release of the initial section one performance bond in the amount of $210,000 as shown in our draft in our materials for tonight.

Second move and second any discussion questions if not roll call. All right. Mr. Polmo I. Mr. Robbins I I vote I Mr. Hasser. I vote I. Motion carries unanimously. Okay. I have a couple questions for you guys. Um, one is that is that bond the actual bond itself with the town treasurer which typically is done but I don't know if you have different I have a clue. Fiona will tell you if anybody know

yes Natalya is raising her hand but yes that'll be the bond will need to be released from the treasure collector's office. Okay. so I can come in and get talking to the treasure. Okay. Yes. Natalya, can you just follow up? Yes. So, first we'll um issue a release um memo or certificate and uh give you a copy as well as a treasurer collectors and then you can arrange for um picking it up with the treasurer. Okay. So, you need to be in touch with Okay. Our our office. Okay. I guess how long should I wait before I do that? tomorrow, Friday, next week,

probably Friday. Um, I will be in touch with you and like I said, I'll give you uh send you a copy of that release so you'll be all set with that. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good. All set. Okay. Okay. You can stick around if you want, but that's you can stick around if you want. You got anything interesting quickly? No. Too bad. We're changing some rules. make it easy, of course.

Um, okay. Uh, that I guess brings us to discussion item 3A, subdivision rules and regulations, LIID updates 2025. What discussion do we have?

Sure. So, Mr. Mr. Chair, I uploaded a document to the meeting materials that outlines all of the final markups and changes that have been done over the past 2 years for the subdivision regulation for this project. Um, they've been tracked in the sidebar and you can see the dialogue that's gone on between staff members, the consultant team, which is VHB, um, and board members. and VHB has uh been going through incorporating um all the comments received and is ultimately going to be responsible for um help helping us basically draft the the final document which this is really honestly where as where it's how far it's going to get. Um they do have the changes tracked in red line there. Um so it's not nothing really um significant in terms of you know major overhaul of of how we've been doing things in Grafton here but it is um there are some interesting changes that we're trying to incorporate to move in the direction of low impact development and try and reduce our storm water um and runoff um from uh new and current developments as this is all part of the MS4 permit. Um the town is required to regularly review um our regulations including the subdivision regulations um our um zoning bylaw amongst other our local storm water permit amongst other things. So we and we have VHB as the kind of as our MS4 consultant. So they helped us draft this. Last time we discussed this was over the summer. We did receive some comments um from board members incorporated them. I think all of them were incorporated without any issue. I think there was one comment that um we may want to discuss tonight. Um I Dave mentioned um not needing to include a

sentence in the red line document, but um you know and that's okay. We can we can do that. I did respond. Um but I'm happy to answer any questions about the project or any comments in particular. Um the at the end of the document there's a compiled list of changes that were made. So um if you're looking for the summary um the appendex F I believe at the end of the document does summarize everything that's been done through 2023 till now.

Yeah. As I looked through it, I was trying to be sure that I caught any policy changes, and I I don't think I found anything that I'd considered a policy change. Moved some stuff around here and there, you know.

Yeah. No, no, no significant no significant policy changes. There was a lot of discussion I think at the beginning of this process about evaluating the use of porest pavement and pavers and those types of things but after discussing with DPW and fire about the feasibility of um implementing that at at the scale that we originally wanted to wasn't going to to work because their obviously their equipment um and apparatus need to be able to um operate and plow and you know the roads need to be weightbearing and accommodate um their vehicles. So there was a bit of a back and forth um and we ultimately decided not to pursue that aggressively. Um but there but no m yeah no major policy changes more um tweaking recommendations suggestions for best practices. Um more along those lines. Um, I I did, you know, I came to a place where I noticed the term cluster development

and u I poked around. I'm not sure whether know you can tell a forgotten word. It's probably in the in the zoning where we tie our flexible development to being whatever a form of cluster development. Not sure whether the term cluster development was defined um in in the old or or now it's it popped up to me as being there. I guess maybe it's been there anyway.

Yeah. My my suggestion on that particular sentence in the proposed subdivision rules, I would suggest replacing the term cluster development with flexible development because I think that was the that seemed to be the clear intent that the was to add a add a mention in the subdivision rules that we encourage the use of flexible development which is in in a sense it's redundant with the zoning bylaw. Uh yeah, and but I I think it doesn't hurt to sort of re-emphasize that within the subdivision rules, but I think that was really intended to refer to flex, right? But rather than using I think I think it I think it's important to or at least it would be nice to refer all to look at all the places we say cluster in both by both the rules and the uh ZBL uh where we say cluster and where we said flex

it'd be clear um what those mean. I think cluster comes from the the state law, doesn't it? Um I don't know. It originates off the top of the state law. Well, if you wonder I think there's various terms open space, residential development, flex cluster. I don't know what's I think it's flexible as in the state law.

Not 100% sure. Yeah, we basically in the zoning bylaw we we define flexible development with reference to the concept of cluster development that comes from 4DA section 9. Mhm. But we pretty consistently in zoning by we we consistently use the term flexible development. We do relate it to the the cluster terminology there.

Yeah. Well, I so either we it seems like some place there should be a thread back from where we any place we say cluster that leads a person back to right what we are talking about in the current subdivision rules the word cluster appears exactly once I know um

that prior to this proposed modification and and even there I think you the point is well taken Bob that it should be you know terminology should be consistent and kind of all related back the uh the concept of cluster development in the zoning ball has been somewhat superseded by open space and I don't off the top of my head remember whether the term cluster is still there but yeah that's something that you want You do you do want to be be consistent and and clear when these concepts are being discussed.

Sure. So I'll add a definition for flexible development into the subdivision regulations and replace anywhere where it says cluster with flex so that it aligns with the zoning. If if that worked that I think that sounds right. Yeah, I think that would make sense. It's capitalized when we say it, so we know it's Yeah, that's a good catch. It's a thing, not a not an idea. Yep. Perfect. Okay. Anything else?

A couple minor points. One comment is I had in the PDF that was distributed as part of the meeting materials, I could not read all of the sidebar comments because a lot of them are particularly when there's a lot of comments on one page, the the comments tended to get truncated and so you couldn't read all of the commentary. Oh, I see. What's the word? Oh, okay. In the form of a word document, it would be much easier to read all of the comments.

Mhm. And that would get there were a couple places where I was unclear where the discussion ended up because I couldn't read the entirety of some of the comments.

Okay. Yeah. Uh, Natalya, we really need to be looking out for that when we when we upload. I had no idea. So, yeah, that's a tough situation. Um, so more or less, and I don't know if the board wants to discuss this later um because you can't really see the dialogue um in the meeting materials, but the only the the only kind of outstanding all of the all of the changes were incorporated. Um, and I know that Dave had submitted um a pretty great commentary over the summer. All of that was double checked in included and then resolved in the document. Um I know you can't see that but um that was that that those that was addressed and the only thing was there was a comment that Dave had left about not needing to necessarily call out that the town is trying to encourage more cluster or flexible development style subdivisions because we already say that in other areas. I did respond saying it I don't I don't believe it would hurt to have that um sentence in there just so it's it's clear. You know, the developers are reviewing the subdivision regulations and they see that, you know, it might it drives home the point of like we're trying to continue to obviously provide housing opportunities but also preserve open space simultaneously. So,

and I agree with that by the way. I agree with including it. Okay. which I I thought I sort of implied with my earlier comment about cluster and flex, but whatever. Yeah, I Yeah, I don't have a problem with that at all. Y yeah, I think that was the only the only comment that was not since this since this document was presented. Um and the since the summer I think Dave and Dave's red lines you can see and those are all addressed and then that was the only the only outstanding comment.

So a couple of other couple of other things. one and I and this is perhaps partly because I could not read in all of the commentary. There was in the discussion there was some discussion around town driveway regulations and it appeared to me that the text referring to drive driveway regulations is not is currently in the document and yet the commentary that I could read said we don't have any driveway regulations. Mhm. So I don't know how that yeah I I don't know how where that ultimately is going to end up and you don't necessarily need to answer that right now but I think we have a rule

I mean we have too about driveways is 500 common driveway we have common driveway regulations there's a reference to just generic driveway regulations which seem to be a reference to regulations that are not part of the subdivision rules but that are just general eneral town regulations for driveways. And at one point, Brian's comment was, "We don't have any." So that's that that may and that may have been fully discussed in the parts of the commentary that I could not read, I could not see. So that's Yeah.

So I'm not sure where how how it ended up the way it did or why. And like I said, I I don't need to uh I don't necessarily need to know to know where we're going with that right this minute. I would like to mention one or two other things. Dave, can you just tell me what page you're looking at because I'm trying to follow along with what you're I I need to make notes of what your It was. It was in section 4.3.7.

I couldn't tell you what the page number was, but my notes have it by section number. Yeah. Yeah. I believe that there was at one point driveway regulations, but they need to be updated. And I think this language has been included in the subdivision regulations for quite some time. So, I'll you know, um I think we decided to keep it just to be consistent with

I have not seen updated driveway regulations since I've been in Grafton, but yeah, that's right. It's in DPW probably has their own in the current subdivision reg. It's 4.3.6 six and it refers to the town of Grafton driveway regulations which if we don't actually have any we may want to may we may we may want to not point people to things that don't exist well we we have some don't we have a rule about how close you can be to the we have some rules about that to the corner of your lot yeah or

but we don't have anything the town does not have anything DPW does not have anything that's called Town of Graft and driveway rigs. As far as I know, Natalyia's hand is up. That may still be up for me. So, from what I remember hearing, um, they passed the driveway regs. They were never incorporated, but the highway did incorporate them into their application form. So, that's where they exist.

Okay, that I think that answers my question. I wasn't clear about that. Yeah. So, moving on. Couple of other things in the proposed. That's probably in the existing one as well. Section 4.9.1 it says sidewalk shall be at least four feet wide and at least in the cross-section diagrams there's commentary from Brian that says should be five feet. Mhm. That should have been updated.

So 4.9.1 should be updated to say five instead of four. 4.9 Okay, I see it. Oh, good catch, Dave.

And let's see. And this is this and then this is the point I just I want to kind of highlight for the board in 4.12.1.6 six on common driveways. The proposal, the proposed revision to the regs suggests that we we have we currently say that a common driveway can serve three lots for single family homes or four four dwellings in two family homes. And the suggestion in the proposed revision is to change that to six. So that would say three lots, three single family homes or as many as three two families with for a total of six. And that is that is at least a minor policy change. I want to make sure that

that I noticed and I want to make sure the board is aware of that and the board can decide which way they want to go with that. I think maybe I'd like to like us to look at that a little more before we do too much with it. Not entirely. So that's that's something you want to think more about. My my only question on that one in particular would that would help sway me on one way or the other is if fire or police had a you safety related concern to that change. I don't

I don't know it. So it seems like the suggestion is that a common driveway can serve up to three lots. Mhm. Each each of the lots can contain either a single family home or a two family. And that's so so from one perspective, yeah, it's the same number of lots. From another perspective, it's more more dwelling units. And is that an issue for us? Right. Yeah. And the fire did review this and did not have any issues. And this this was flagged before and they they did not have any concerns.

One sudden thought to say on that one point, Dave, is this might be further complicated by the ADU law. That's what I was about to ask about. Uh I'm not sure what the interactions are and I'm not sure my brain is ready to figure it out between now and up to two families each. six people and then possibly three or six more ADUs. Who knows how many because the special permits. Yeah. Who knows? Oh. Um Okay. Um is that all Dave?

That's the only only commentary I had like I said and if I if after this meeting the board is has an opportunity to to more completely read through the commentary that might answer some questions or might raise new questions.

Okay. So, we can take this up at another meeting. We are shooting to try and have this the subdivision rules and rags done in early 2026 or really would like to try and get it done by February. um if you know just for the board's own because we do need to start we do have a contract with VHP and we do need to start moving on the zoning updates as well and I just wanted to kind of do one thing at a time but just so the board is aware I mean we do have we do have time um and I do understand that obviously the PDF um truncating the comments is made it u made review a little bit um challenging so um yeah that's fine we can we can talk about about it at another meeting before we have a formal public hearing on the changes.

Yeah. And the other question I wanted to ask you is how does this this set of re regulation updates relate to the MS4 permit where the dis the discussion around the roadway crosssections. It says that there's we're kind of we're kind of waiting on the on the MS4 permit to tell us something about the green infrastructure that we might need. So, do we need to wait for that before we finalize these rigs or

do we expect to further update the regs once we get better definition on the green infrastructure? Yeah, I mean the the crosssections which are the um the im images at the bottom of the the document that u Dave is referring to um there's some comments there about not fully updating those because we do not know if there if the state is going to be coming out with um best practices or suggestions on what green infrastructure to incorporate um and kind of if they will be producing imagery or whatever and so VHB had recommended kind of waiting to update the cross-sections but the language in the text is reflective of what the permit will be asking for. So, at least the regulations and the narratives in the regulations will be updated. The cross-sections were just waiting on because there's a little bit they're a little bit more complicated to update. And quite frankly, I'm not, you know, I don't know if I need to consult with um a firm that specializes in making these types of things or if it's something that VHB can do in house. It didn't seem like it was something they could do. Um and just rather than I mean if the state is going to be making things available um for the public you know to and and towns and municipalities to use. I think we were planning on just waiting until we get a little bit more guidance. I guess part part I was partly wondering was whether anything other than the diagrams might be impacted by the by things that have yet to be yet to be published or yet to have come out.

Yeah. So I'm not um I'm I'm not an MS4 um I'm not very wellversed in MS4. I know enough to be dangerous, but VHB is is the town's consultant and has been for many many years for on MS4 specifically, and they have been working with us for the past 2 years on this and have not um raised any red flags or concerns about the draft permit significantly overhauling or contradicting anything that we're proposing here. It's all moving in the direction of lid anyway. Let's So, let's be aware that it's not that charred to change these rules.

Mhm. Move ahead. Get what we want done done. When new needs surface, maybe we won't wait quite as long as we have. Of course, we always say that, don't we? Um, we'll, you know, wait, you write something up, you put out a notice, you have a meeting, a hearing, and you say done. Um, yeah. And now there's probably a lot less printing and a lot more uploading a file to the internet. Um, isn't there?

So, why don't we why don't we see if we can do that? Okay. And, um, I thought those drawings were lovely. Um, I will say I agree with Dave about I couldn't figure out about the comments, but the PDF came up on my computer much more readable because it was a different piece of software that is more civilized uh preview instead of I'm not sure what happened. It it looked it was very legible when I checked it, but I'm looking at it in the meeting materials and it doesn't uh you can't see and some of the threads are quite long because it was discussion over two years of to do so.

No, I get all kinds of columns and then I try pages on the Mac and it's better but it's different. Okay. Um that's uh all we have to do until now. It is 7:34. So on on subdivision rules, Fiona, are we looking at uh continuing this discussion essentially trying to complete this discussion at our next meeting and then schedule a public hearing? Yes, that's the plan. I want to give the board the opportunity to see the full document with all of the comments be done

and the public as well. So, um yeah, we'll we'll discuss it one um again at the well at the next meeting. Nothing will change between then and now. It'll just be a revised document that's legible. So, apologies for that. I did not catch it before the meeting. Okay. Um enough on that for tonight.

Definitely. Okay. Um, I'm going to We're now down to our hearings. Um, I'm going to start with uh 6B, which is um the um proposal for a child care center at the church. U reusing the church. I believe that we got a request to withdraw with uh without prejudice without prejudice uh which was in our materials. Yeah. Um

and for the millions watching at home without prejudice is meaning that the applicant could resubmit effectively tomorrow if they wanted to. Yeah, the there there's a there's a a different it's a different form, you know, if you don't do with if it's with prejudice, then you can't come back for some period of time. Yep. Is there any uh Oh, well, we might want to have a motion to I move that the board grants the withdrawal without prejudice. Second. Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Apparently not. Roll call.

Mr. Polmo. I I vote I. Mr. Robbins. I. And Mr. Hassinger. I did you say what you voted? I voted I.

Uh motion carried unanimously. Um, which brings me to the continued uh hearing on Jumbo's path. Seven Jumbo's path toughs. Um and al and with this we have action item A 2A which is uh a determination of a minor modification of the amended master plan

uh pursuant to section so and so that's the master plan for tough Right. Not the master plan for That's correct. Which we've heard a bit about some of us lately. Um why don't you tell us who you are and tell us well uh Fiona, is there anything you want to say before

Yes. Yes. I'll I'll handle the intro for the minor mod. So, the board might recall at the last hearing um there was a formal request to um review the uh expedited classroom extension um that is the project before the board um for this public hearing. Um the learning center uh review that change as a separate detached facility um and and phase construction as a minor modification to the 2021 amended master plan. Um originally uh the uh learning center uh was was going to be uh conjoined with the um the the nearby hospital there and they were going to be built um next to each other and on I believe on the same um development tract. But this is the slightly slightly different changes obviously that are being proposed to this project. Um and under uh you know section 9.6 Six TUS is requesting that the board vote on um evaluating th those changes as minor and then we'll file a the requisite paperwork with the town clerk. Just want to make sure that we're kind of following the paper trail correctly and following all the procedural requirements of the zoning. So it's just part of the um part of that section.

Perhaps I'm happy to answer any questions. Perhaps we should make that um determination now. Before we move on with the hearing, the rest of the hearing. Yes. Yes. All right. What does anybody have to say about it?

I'll make the motion that by the based on the draft I have in front of me that we approve the change in development plan from a combined hospital and classroom expansion of the building known as 40A and 35A to a detached learning center within 200 feet of the original location located on at 200 Westboro Road, Jumbo's Path, North Grafton. also to approve the phase development to allow accelerated construction of the classroom expansion ahead of the hospital and clinic expansion and find that the development is consistent with the amended Grafton campus master plan 2021.

Second moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Natalia's hand is up. Natalia, would you make mention that it you are making a determination of minor modification? So, so amended. What did she ask for? That I'm explicitly saying it's a determination of minor modification. Oh, okay. Um, does the second agree with Yes. All right. We'll consider it amended. At least this second does. Think we both simultaneously Dave, you can be the second on that one. Okay,

good. Is there any discussion? Any comment from anyone? Roll call. All right, Mr. Polarmo. I I vote I, Mr. Robbins. I and Mr. Hassinger. I motion carried unanimously, which brings us to the overall plan. Uh Fiona, are there any just to get me started are we left with anything open that we need for this?

No, Mr. Chair, I think the answers to the reviews of the material and so on. There was one tiny comment I think in grave second review about the sizing of the storm water chambers. I did in the draft decision. I just included that as a con, you know, add those details in a final plan set to be submitted to building and planning prior to a building permit. It's a really small construction detail. Um, but we don't need to do do something about it tonight. We didn't. No. Well, I think the board

am I going to be able to say, "Let's have a vote."

Yeah, it's a it's a that's a minor detail and not nothing to be concerned about. It's accounted for in the decision. So, we'll get that information. Um TU's team did connect with fire and talked through um proposals or options rather for the access route. the revised plans with the preferred option were uploaded into the record. Um so they have full access around the building perimeter. Um so that was cleared out and um there was a couple of um public comments but from a staff perspective in terms of waiting on any materials or any clear you know um closing out from the peerreview process or waiting on plans were all set on that front. There was, I believe, a com uh two comments, one comment submitted into the record um from a member of the public. And I don't know if anybody is in the room, but there might be um there might be commentary there, but

we we have uh one person in the room. I saw a comment about uh native species and so on. uh fairly lengthy. Um interesting. I wish we got that input all the time. It came up in a conversation with my wife today as we drove drove up past um the North Grafton Library area uh and the trees there and how they were not a good choice so many years ago. Pine the uh whatever they are, pine trees. Okay. Uh, so Fiona, did you share that with um with TUS that public comment?

Yes, I was just going to chime in. This is Liza Perry from Tus University. Um, we did review that uh comment letter today about plant species and um I have noted it for the whole team and uh we will take the recommendations into um advisement on our plant selections. Thank you. Doesn't change our decision, right? No. Okay. Um, why don't you introduce yourself and say hello? Hello, I'm Julie Farah from CSL Consultant Consulting. I'm the owner's project manager working on the Cummings Learning Center. Yeah, you pretty promptly got the changes and all the responses done. Yep.

More than we see sometimes. No, that's good. Okay. Does anybody up here have anything at this point? As long as the fire that I talked to owner about that today. They just long as that they decided on that um option with the fire department that makes Yeah, we're we're the fire department's happy. Right. Okay.

Good evening. I'm John Stevens. I am here as a citizen of Grafton. Although I am a member of the TUS advisory community committee and have been since day one. I am a member of the historical commission and I am the chairman now. I'm a member of the historic district commission and I will take full responsibility on this but I was not aware that this was going to come down until Saturday. this had been discussed last fall at the last meeting. And the discussion that I remember was that it wasn't imminent. It wasn't happening this soon. And I, as I always say, you need to reach out to Mass Historical because there's a section 106 review for any kind of projects that um affect um state funding or federal funding, state permitting, federal permitting because this property is on the National Register of Historic Places. Um, all that being said, again, I'm here as an individual because the committee did, the Dru the historical commission didn't have an opportunity to to discuss this and I'm really disappointed that this building's coming down. I'm disappointed that this has happened so quickly and that nobody reached out to me. I've understood that Mass Historical has not gotten back to somebody at TUS. I called and talked to I it's took me 30 minutes, but I got to somebody today at lunchtime and but I'm on the I'm on their committee. I'm on TU's committees and I they know I'm representing the historical interests of the town. If anybody and they've reached out to me before for questions why nobody reached out to me if they can't reach Mass Historical, I don't know. I think the problem this is this building is gone. Unfortunately, it

is a a unique building on the campus that all the other buildings for the most part are brick buildings. This is more like a a a lodge that you'd find at a a camp in New Hampshire. It has a round rock foundation and um either cloud or shingle siding. So, it has a very different character and feel. It's a very visible building. It's right on Route 30. Um, and I know at the meetings they discussed buildings that they want to take down. Um, the Swine 2, which was a building off in the back and had a lot of problems. Even as bad a building as that was, and I was concerned, and I said, "Can we get a walkthrough? Can we take photographs?" TUS said they would hire, and they did hire somebody to take photographs to document the building. So, I will ask, has this been done with this building to preserve to keep a record to have a record of this building? Because it's gone. I I I know it's it's the last hour and there's nothing I can do. It it there's nothing I can do except for say I'm really disappointed that this this happened and I was not aware of it and somebody from the public brought it up to my attention. And another concern is that this is multiple buildings that have come down and it's a pattern and that obviously I mean they said at the meeting they don't like historic buildings that cost money to maintain but they're important and that was part of when they bought the campus these were historic buildings and it's on the national register so you have to be a a steward of those buildings and not everything can be saved but they want to take down all the buildings on I think it's Captain O'Brien. They've already taken down one. And when this comment was made in October, I to myself

thought, okay, I'll let those three go, but I want to save the police station because that is a very unique and distinctive building. Whereas I think some of those other buildings that the homes had been moved so that you lose some of the historical significance of them when they are moved. But you have to pick and choose. And this was what I was going to this what I what I hope to save and come up with a better um alternative than tearing it down because once it's gone, it's gone.

Yeah. I don't begin to know who has what rules or regulations. there are no for for what they're doing unless there and they've stated that there are no state or federal permits or funding tied with this and that's when there is a section 106 review which requires them to go through Mass Historical then Mass Historic will research the project and see and make a determination. But you say they don't have to do that because because of those federal and state thresholds have not they're not affected by this. So, is there anything that we can do about it except let you

I would say I would let you I would love to know I have a list of build because I've tried to work with the town's building inspector to get demolition notices just to so I can at least run out and take a picture and for the last 6 months I have still not gotten that. So it's communication is difficult and you try and you try and you try and um but to have a list of all the buildings that they want to take down you know so we have a good list and then we can say okay I agree with that what about this let's see if we can't work around that because again you have to pick and and choose your battles um I know certain buildings aren't going to uh suit their needs um but and it's like everything every building is expensive to maintain whether it's new or it's old. Um but to have a list and then also when they do take down these buildings to make a commitment that they will work with the historical commission. They'll reach out to the commission and they will document the buildings before they um take them down.

You say there's a whole list of buildings in Grafton. I'm if for their buildings that they want to take down. No, no. I'm saying just I'm thinking generally if if there is a list of all the buildings that are designated uh then there only a a dozen or fewer buildings in graft that are on the national register which is the highest standard but the national register is only a good goodkeeping house of goodkeeping seal of approval. You could still tear it down tomorrow.

Yeah. But what I'm what I'm you're looking for I think you're looking for more communication and opportunity to know or you know heads up something's happening right if the planning department has a list of the building knows what buildings are if I'm not mistaken your concern there's a GIS level that has historic stuff on it that that may or may not be accurate that was always a plan and I don't know that that has happened well I'd like to see a written list. But in any case,

there's a three volume set of it has historical and architectural information, but but it's only a documentation of of those buildings. It's not that you cannot modify them. It's just a a record. So that it I'm looking to the future and saying that if um the planning department was aware of of sensitivity, they could have let made sure that you folks knew in the future. Can I just jump in quickly? Yes.

The headmaster. Well, I I want to He can't He can't fix this one, but I'm trying to help him in the future, but Go ahead. No, I just I just wanted to say two two things quickly. And one is that um I I think I heard John say that the building was down. The building is not down. No, I didn't say it's down. It's coming down in January from what I've February. Yeah. So, yeah. few weeks

and this this is the process we're going through now. And and I just want to say that we did um look look very hard at the options for not taking it down and relocating the buildings but just related to all the things that are underground and various other choices. I go into the details um um that that's the reason why in the end the building has to come down to to accommodate the the new building. But um we th this was sort of a decision that was was made this fall after a lot of discussion. Um but we will make sure that the building is is appropriately um uh documented. Um and uh um we're happy to follow up with you on making sure that that happens.

Do you know if the locust barn is next on the list of buildings to come down? Uh, note that the locust barn is not in any list to come down because we're there's no intent to put anything there. Um, I can't guarantee that that building doesn't end up coming down on its own, of course, because it is um it is, as you know, an allwood wood building, but there there are no plans at this time to to take that building down.

Okay, back to Bob. in terms of that there should be there's a the there's the capacity to have a GIS level with all this information that we have to be input. I don't know that it has happened or not. This is from when Anne Morgan was in town so this is old but that was the hope and I don't know if she was able to do that or if somebody else has done that because I don't use it. Yeah. the uh the the ma mass historic has an online database mas right

which has which lists lists all all of the properties that they have any information on including and they're noted whether they're on the state register or the national register there's there's quite a bit of information that is available online

right but what Bob was saying is locally to where because that's what we we can't even get the district the the building inspector and the town to follow the rules of the district and it's 20 buildings, you know, so for the whole town that's a big ask. So what's what may be missing here if something's missing is that you know the the the development team you know the people involved in reviewing developments should make a point of any proposed development of checking its relationship to historic building.

Correct. That that would be appreciated. Not that we can save it but at least we can document it. Right. So at least you being being aware and from from the developer point of view being aware that you know there is the historic consideration and this kind of goes beyond the the topic of the public hearing but as something for for future consideration. And yeah I think you Fiona is probably listening to this taking notes. Yeah. Okay. You think uh Fiona that you could communicate this to the appropriate levels to

Yes. Yes. We will um continue to coordinate and I I know we had I believe we had a discussion last year about adding the historical commission and the HTC onto our just general email blast. So I'm not sure what happened. Um so I apologize about that. But we did were able to confirm John because John is now the new chair of the Historical historical commission, right John? Correct.

So yeah, you're on now you're you're definitely going to get all the email blasts going forward. Um and I do have that GIS layer up on map GIO. So I can see the macros database with the point the XY coordinates and the district overlays are on there. So, I don't know when the last time it was updated. It's probably a little bit Does this building show on Yep. Yep. This building's on there. It has a It's a um It's within the uh uh what is it? Sorry.

It's a thematic nomination on the National Register of State Hospitals. So, they did I think as it's statewide several state hospitals. So, it's not just individually. It's a what what I'm trying to figure out is if somebody looked at this resource, they would have known that the building we're talking about needed to be looked at. At least ask a couple of questions. Yes,

the the building and the district are inventoried um on the national register uh in MACRIS and then also on our GIS. But as John was mentioning earlier, um unless certain triggers are met um for review, there's not a lot of leeway. And my understanding was the um MHP has sorry MHC has been a bit difficult to try and get feedback from uh in terms and and and honestly coordinating with them is nine out of 10 times they're saying that it's a finding of no adverse adverse effect um for the most part but and I think that's been the case with a lot of estate hospital properties but yeah I think it's it's unfortunately it's the triggers for review aren't being met and also with those difficulties with coordinating with MHC as well. Not, you know, not saying that that's, you know, not blaming anybody or anything. I'm just it's it has been challenging just from my recent experience with with trying to work with them as MHC as well. So, um but we will definitely be making sure our communication is stronger.

Yeah. going forward, you might want to be communicating to all the known members. Um I I I'm in touch with Fiona. I mean, that's you know, so it's not like I'm a stranger. No, but what I'm thinking about is someday someone's going to forget to tell someone that the chair changed, right? Or whatever. And u if we're sending to everybody on on the commission um then that increases the prospects for

people being made aware of it. And just another thing that relates to this and sorry to keep going that we are working with Central Mass Regional Planning Commission on a proposed demolition delay bylaw for Grafton which I fingers crossed the town will approve that it won't be too stringent. But if we had something like that with this we would have been notified that the building was they they pulled a permit to demolish it. So we would be on notice and then we would have an opportunity of 60 days, 90 days, whatever to work with them to do whatever we needed to do rather than at the last minute say, "Hey, you turn the building down tomorrow. Can we come in and look and take pictures?" Which I know that's that's the wrong way to do it.

Well, when that finishes and something comes to us, maybe you'll be back to talk to us about it. Okay. Right. Because it'll be getting it to town meeting getting it taken care of. They're supposed to finish it this last month, so should be soon. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do you have anything more? I do not. Does anybody else have anything else we need to talk about here? I don't think so. Maybe we would like to close the hearing. So moved.

Seconded. Moved and seconded. Uh discussion hearing none. Roll call. Mr. Palmo. I I vote I. Mr. Robbins. I. And Mr. Hasser. I meeting uh the meeting is closed um unanimously and we have oh it just says discussion draft decision

PPR2025-03 Truffus TUS Learning Center. Um, that mean we can't vote on it tonight? We can't. I believe we can. We What's the question? Can we vote on it? Does this Oh, let me see. Natalia, the draft decision. Yeah. Yes, you can. The deci the agenda does say does mention decision. Oh, yeah. If you say so. I think that's something I asked about. Okay. Application and draft. believe we have a draft decision.

You think um Fiona, you think the draft decision is what we need? Nothing's nothing's come up to change anything. I think based on the discussion just now, I think if the TUS team want to do I think I'll include um some just some language that any changes to the landscaping plan to do more native species will just be considered a field change. And I I don't think it's necessary for them to have to come back unless the board would like that. But that's a that's pretty kind of pretty pretty standard when you're out in the field kind of making those adjustments. Um and it's we're we're happy that the tough team is doing that. So I think um I'll just include a sentence if this is agreeable to the board to just allow them to kind of factor in the commentary from the public meeting about the more uh native species.

Okay. for me and I I believe that's all I mean I will need to incorporate a finding just to capture um John and the historic commission's comments from this evening. So, but that's just you know housekeeping item. Um, and other than that, I'll just make a note about the vote of the minor modification. And there's there's an exhibit called out for Greg doing a Mullen, but since he's not here to vote on the decision, we won't need that, right? I will take that out. So, I had Oh, we Oh, no. We're not ready. Go.

I I had a couple of knits. Oh, no. you know, my essentially spelling errors. I can either of those. I think the motion could include I I I can communicate those to staff out Yep. outside of this discussion. I I move that the board find favorably on all findings, grant all waiverss, and approve the decision as drafted with amendments as discussed already, plus any spelling and minor grammar adjustments as Mr. Robbins will suggest to staff. Is there a second to the motion? Second.

Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. Roll call. Mr. Palmo I. I vote I. Mr. Robbins. I. And Mr. Hassinger. I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. You and Fiona will figure out whatever needs. Yeah. And Fiona and Natalyia. I will I will send an email if I don't forget probably after I get home tonight from the meeting with the I think there are four four little things essentially. I think they're all basically spelling errors. Okay. Certainly nothing substantive, but I'll I'll send that off to you.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, Dave. So, toughs. Um, I will try and get this done as soon as I can. Hopefully by tomorrow, but it may not be until this week is obviously very challenging. So, um, early next week. Would that be a problem? It's a site, it's essentially a site plan approval, so you don't have an appeal period or anything like that. Um, yeah, that's Fiona. We can we can be in touch. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to the board. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you. Okay, I think that brings us to staff report.

Okay, so um we were uh we did get awarded our um two district local technical assistance projects. So, thank you CMRPC and fiscal development uh committee for the awards. We're very excited to start the permitting guide and continue the flexible development research. Um obvious uh once we kind of get through the the Christmas holidays and the new year, um we'll start jumping in uh jumping into implementation of the master plan in earnest. there'll be a call for volunteers and kind of start setting that up, setting the schedule and coordinating with the select board about um getting that committee assembled. I'm uh I did have um a prior intern do some research about the best way to kind of handle the compilation of that committee. So if the board has any suggestions, I am of the opinion that um a committee that's really really big is very challenging to work with because there's quorum issues. Um and we saw that I think a bit with the master plan working group. I'm not trying to I guess I'm trying to focus on kind of having you know advertising for uh subject matter experts for each of the chapters at the very least and hopefully not exceeding that because that's already a good chunk of people um because we originally the master plan working group was 27 people and then I think we ended up having at the very end there

11 if I remember right

11 I was going to say you had 9 or 11. Yeah. Yeah. 11. So, you know, it's we're trying to kind of make it a work workable group, but we're, you know, excited to start implementing implementing the plan. Um just Yeah. Other than that, you know, business as usual. Um trying to just get uh coordinated uh with kind of the longer uh longer range uh projects and kind of prioritizing what we have coming up. Um grant deadlines. We're looking at a Mass Trails grant with the Blackstone um Valley Heritage Corridor for the Blackstone Bikeway. So, they approached us and asked for um some assistance with grant writing. So, I will be helping them out there. um looking at drafting um RFP notices for uh the feasibility study for Fischerville Mill as well as the final permitting work for the Fischerville Dam. So that's on the grant front looking at um discussing with Paul Conway uh about submitting a complete streets application for sidewalks along mil um Milbury Street from Hudson to Crosby to kind of connect to that um the safe routes to school sidewalk installation that was done a few years ago. So just um you know got a lot going on. always busy um trying to kind of um prioritize in the new year and create kind of like a a running list of all these bigger projects because there's been a lot of um stuff coming up lately. So yeah, happy to answer any questions or talk about anything specific.

Apparently not. I'll have to chat with you sometime about master plan implementation. Yes. I've got some I've got some ideas, but we don't need to call over that tonight. All right. Uh correspondence. Anything in the correspondence? I take it not. So, that brings us down to reports from planning board representatives on town committees and CMRPC. Um, nothing nothing special for me. I have nothing.

Um, as it happens, I was there at CMRPC. Um, since I'm on the committee that decides about the DTAS, yes,

we had a two-hour meeting. We had presentations for 22 applications, including Grafton's. Grafton's name was floating around in within a couple of the other projects I think you know where there's three or four towns involved. So um we funded all of them to the level that was requested. Um it's really a great the DTA is really a great program. It's sort of it's sort of working as seed money in many many ways. uh a number of the projects that we approved, you know, this X dollars uh triggers our ability to get 10 times that.

Yes. From you know, whatever other source. So, uh everybody was pretty happy. Okay. Even um is there anything else? Um I don't think there's anything that could lawfully come before us. And I'm not about to make a motion to continue the meeting past 10. Instead, I'd be delighted to make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Moved and seconded. It's not debatable. Roll call. Mr. Palmo. I. I vote. I. Mr. Robbins. I. Mr. Hassinger. I. We're out of here. Thanks, Fiona. Feel better.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you, TA. Thank you.