Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is 7:0 3:00 p.m. This open meeting of the Grafton Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted both remotely and in person consistent with the temporary provisions of the open meeting law, which extends remote meeting protocols through March 31st, 2027. This meeting is convening by a Zoom video conference and in person as posted on the meeting agenda, which can be found on the town of Grafton website. Please see the meeting agenda for details on how to participate remotely. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. All participation in this meeting will be visible to others. Um be aware that if you share your screen, it may be recorded and visible or may be viewed at a later date. Uh this meeting may feature public comment. Anyone attending virtually, if you would like to request acknowledgement to speak, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. And the meeting administrator will enable you to speak when it's your turn. For anyone on the phone exclusively, the meeting administrator will enable you to speak. Um for those in person, we ask you to step up to the podium. Do we have a podium? Well, come up to the desk. We don't have a podium here. Uh and for all speakers, please state your name and address prior to your comments or questions. And all votes taken tonight will be done by a roll call vote.

[snorts] So, the We'll just start with uh we'll do them in numerical order, I guess. Um Yeah, I guess they're going to withdraw, so we should do Well, you're going to do that anyways. Yeah, I was just going to go Yeah. old business and then I'll actually I I didn't realize they were there. Yeah, I would do this one first. Yeah, so we'll start with number 921, 60 Waterville Street. [snorts]

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Shane Pickard, 129 Southeast Main Street, Douglas, Massachusetts, here on behalf of Mr. Kevin Bowman of 1 Burt Street here in the town of Grafton. Um at this time we're requesting leave to withdraw the application. Okay. Any questions or comments from the board? Just a question. They withdraw and a situation happens again. Well, or if they if they kept the case Wait a minute. How would I want to phrase it?

I I think I think if we do withdraw without prejudice, they can come back. They I mean at any time he can Could come back tomorrow. into the zoning enforcement officer. Right. And being withdrawn, she's got to act on it one way or the other. And if they don't like how she acted on it, they could file to come back here. But if we voted on this, if they allowed us to vote and it went against them, could they [snorts] even file a complaint with the zoning enforcement officer? I I'm just curious. I mean, it has nothing to do

and I think they could appeal that. It It's not an application. appeal it, but they could file another complaint with Tracy. With Tracy, but could they come back in front of us for the same thing if we had voted in the negative, say? Um this is just all hypothetical. So, what you're saying is with a special permit or variance, if we vote in the negative, then there's a 2-year period you can't come back. I don't know if that's the same with uh an appeal like this. And I don't know if uh town council, who is online right now, has any can can offer some guidance on that. Yeah, so there is some um [clears throat]

there's some case law that applies that 2-year window um to a building permit appeals and enforcement appeals, but those cases are primarily from the superior and land courts. So, you know, they don't count as binding precedent. There's no appeals court case that says that, but um so I I assume or I suppose it's an open question whether uh repetitive, you know, enforcement requests on the same issue, you know, can be barred. Um you know, I think there's arguments that go both ways and courts have come out both ways on that question. So, um I think for the purposes of this hearing, if this uh appeal is withdrawn, um it it would certainly be the case that they could not file a subsequent appeal of the same decision uh made by the building commissioner um that led to this appeal. Um I think it's an open question of whether they can, you know, ask for the same zoning enforcement tomorrow. Um you know, you'd expect to get a denial of that. And whether this board could hear it or not, I'm not I'm not sure. I think it's an open question. Hm. Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCusker. Yeah, so so Tony, I thought that if if we did a withdrawal without prejudice, the without prejudice allowed the applicant to potentially turn around and come right back in. I thought that's why we actually did withdrawals without prejudice. And it's been so long since I've may maybe I'm misremembering it. Yeah, so that's true. So, this is a little different than, you know, for an example, a special permit application. Um you know, you can apply for a special permit, you can withdraw without prejudice if the board agrees, and you

can come back the next day and file another one. In this circumstance, um because it's an appeal of a determination from the zoning enforcement officer, there's a 30-day deadline to file that appeal. They timely filed the instant appeal that's open before the board now. Um but if you allow them to withdraw without prejudice, I don't think it makes a difference because then their subsequent appeal of that same order would be far past the 30-day deadline. Okay. So, appeals are a little bit different than a a variance application or a special permit application. Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCusker. One more again to to council. So, I I was about to do a motion to allow them to withdraw without prejudice. Do you have any recommendation that I do or don't do it that way or I just want to make sure I do the right thing. If if if maybe it doesn't matter, and I I think that's almost what you're saying. And that that was directly

Are you asking I'm sorry, you Are you asking me?

asking you, Tony. Do you want me to say it again? No, no, I heard the question. Um so, specifically, they cannot if you if you allow them to withdraw without prejudice, it doesn't matter if they are going to appeal the same determination that they received that led to the instant appeal because we're past the 30-day window. I think it's an open question whether they, you know, will be able can be allowed to ask for further zoning enforcement on the same issue, get a decision from the building commissioner, and if they're unhappy with that decision, then appeal again to this board. Um you know, that's something that I can look into, but I know it doesn't help us right now, and um you know, I only learned about the potential withdrawal late this afternoon, and I was in court today, so I didn't have a chance to, you know, dig into the cases and give you a better answer, but I think there's a risk to the applicant that if they withdraw without prejudice or with prejudice, um well, certainly with prejudice, but without prejudice, they they might not be able to, you know, go through this process again at least for 2 years. But I I'm not sure about that, and I think that would be something for the applicant and their counsel to kind of figure out if that's what they choose to do. Do you Do you have a preference? I I apologize for asking the original question. I should have just I love it. I'm I'm glad you did. And certainly, Mr. Chairman, we would certainly seek a withdrawal without prejudice. Uh I mean, typically, that's what's done before ZBAs in order to preserve someone's right to appeal. As a practical matter, I can tell you that we filed the original request with Ms. Sharkey back in October. And as you know, since you haven't received any updated photographs, the issue seems to have gone away. Um so, as a practical matter, we don't intend to file an appeal unless a whole bunch of vehicles show up in the front yard,

mainly because some of the members of the board have indicated that that's what they would want to see um in order to find even consider it a violation. So, it hasn't happened. I don't have the photographs because so far as I know, the cars simply haven't been there. Um I can tell you that the O'Connors have hired counsel in the meantime. I've spoken to counsel on several occasions, corresponded with him, and it seems to me that the parties are at least pretty nearly on the same page as as far as the issue is concerned. So, um I spoke to counsel briefly. I actually emailed him briefly uh this afternoon letting him know we were going to move to withdraw. He said he wouldn't show up in light of that. And uh in light of the way things have developed, it just doesn't make sense to to push forward um in the current circumstances. As far as the actual bringing a new uh appeal of the existing order, I agree with counsel, there's no way we could do that the 30 days is long past so that that letter stands indefinitely. Um and then if a new issue arose a new set of facts as it would be actually with all these cars in the front yard and photographs to to to back that up I my position is that we would have the right to request enforcement just start the process over again request enforcement and if the zoning commissioner then then I request to bring it back before the board. That that seems to make sense to me. Yeah. That it would be a another a separate case.

whole new case Right. So whether or not this is with prejudice or without I think it's almost irrelevant for this circumstance. So I I make a motion that we allow case number 921 to withdraw without prejudice. Second. Uh Ms. Reed Yes. Mr. McCosker Yes. Mr. Adams

Yes. Mr. Mejia Yes. Chairman Puth Yes. Okay, so it's withdrawn. Thank you. Uh the next case It's two Yeah. I think it's speaking of which it matters. Um All right. Um next case is number 754 Fisherville Terrace. But if it Um You want to pull up the the map? Yeah. Here give us your name every We know who you are.

I am Munir Ahmed Fisherville Terrace LLC. 119 Main Street I'm here on the proof plan we had one mailbox location and I'm here to request secondary location for mailboxes. So what what led to this change? Um We were going back and forth with the postmaster and then eventually we decided that we were just going to put them all in the original location. And then um bunch of the residents called Tracy and then kind of complained to her about too many boxes in that smaller loop that's there. So then Tracy us and the postmaster we came up with an idea of adding a second location um to the the larger loop. So there's mailboxes in the smaller loop? Yes. Are there mailboxes down at the Main Street? No? Oh, I'm mistaken. Where are they on So if you look right um in that pond right across from 20 right here? Yeah, right there. Let me enlarge it. Yeah, it's that little to the right of those two units. Yeah. Yep. To the right of number 19. Go uh yep. You see where that parking area right there? That's the original proposal mailbox location. Oh, right there? Yeah. Oh, yeah.

So now you're going to have two so small on this. I'm sorry. I tried to print them bigger. That's on me. No, that's So now there's going to be that one is and then another one. And that one had too many to begin with is that what

No, it's just that if you put all of them in that one location then everybody from the larger loop it was it is going to go through and go over there to get their mail. Okay. Uh units 45 and 46 built and sold 45 and 40 where you're putting the mailbox? No, they're not sold yet. That's what I was going to say. Um the one thing I I was thinking about driving over here is we add one more one more box to um the original spot that will make it 48 there then we do the balance here and by that time that area will all be all built out. No, but

Sorry, say it say it again. I I didn't understand that. So location one right now has 32 boxes. Okay. Uh in the original letter I was going to leave that 32 I was going to suggest that we add one more box at that so that would be 48 there and the balance would be up on the hill. But my point is units 45 and 46 They're not built yet. They're not built yet. No. So anybody moving in there is going to know the mailbox is next to Correct. and they're going to get a little traffic next to them. Yeah. I don't have the plans. What was here before? Was it just open? It was just open, yes. I'm trying to find the mailboxes on the prior plans at all.

[snorts] I found them on There's on If you look at that sheet number if you look at the same sheet number that's that we submitted if you look on that one on the proof plan you'll see it. So this is sheet number All right, so I missed the conversation. Where is the original one? Between 19 over by 19. To the right of 19. Oh, community mailbox got it. Okay. All right, and that's it is that's where it shows on the the proof [snorts] plan as well. All right. [clears throat] So you said at adding one box so one box is 16

16 units, yeah. Okay. Well, okay. So the letter they filed Yeah. Oh, location one will include 32 mailboxes with the remaining Is that not what you're talking about doing now? Yeah, I'm thinking of adding a one more box at location one. One is the original and two is the new one. Correct. by the bigger [clears throat] loop. one will include 48 mailboxes. Correct. And how many at location two? It'd be 52. 52 cuz there's 100 units.

Yeah, yeah, it's It'd be 52 the other one. 48 and 52. Does that have to be approved by the postmaster or No. adding another box? have just approve location The location has to be approved. That's all. They met with the postmaster out there. Tracy, Munir and the postmaster.

I was just saying They went and walked it and tried to figure it out so because we had gotten a couple of complaints which precipitated all of this. So So wouldn't adding 16 additional units to location one doesn't that create the same problem that there are complaints about now? Or I guess increase the problem by adding more traffic. I mean there's already there's already a couple cuz the phase two the smaller loop has 22 there's already 30 32 units boxes there. Right, but there's only on that smaller loop there's how many units are 22 So there's you're having then what 20 Did you say 48? Yeah. So why are you making the people in the upper loop go to those Right, that's what I was getting at. No, it's just cuz like if I if I need one mailbox like right away cuz we're about 40 sold and that area is not is still there's still houses getting built over there. And where where you've got the new proposed location everybody in that loop has got to drive uh basically the whole loop to get their mail. Correct. How about if you just put it at that them seven or eight parking spots between unit 98 and 99? Uh you mean down there? Yeah. Um

[sighs] There's a little there's a little it's not shown on this point but there's a little drainage basin over there. Oh. Okay. But [clears throat] I mean it's seems like a lot less traveling for a lot of people but Yeah. Is maybe to the the question that the chairman was getting at the complaints that were coming in already Yeah. was it about the prospect of all 100

Yeah, it was the prospect of all 100. So it wasn't about current traffic being too much. It was about we don't want a hun you know Oh, we've got 22 now. We don't want 100 people worth of mail traffic coming through the loop. Does the post office care where on site they are or the division of them? No, the division they don't care but we they had agreed on the location.

The only thing that concerns me is everybody's going to be driving up there. And that place is so congested. And when kids are out of school, there's kids everywhere. Especially in the warm weather. Yeah. But But what's that drainage thing on the in between 98 and 99? It's just a little basin that catches the the the middle area. I mean, is it right up against the curbing? It's not right against the curb, but it's behind the curb. You could you could potentially put it there. You could potentially put it there? Cuz I mean, it doesn't take up much room.

Yeah, it doesn't take up much room. Three or four feet in from the curbing? Yeah. And the fact that there's more parking additional space there. More more space is there. Was that um location considered and for some reason decided to put it by 45? No, I think that the right now what we have some like Conex boxes over there, so that's what may be why it was not considered cuz the other spot is more cleaned up right now. So there's no 98 99 not built either.

No. Do you have any major objections against that? No, I don't have any major objections. I don't know. It it just seems more logical to put it there instead of having every person getting mail drive to the furthest point back in the on that loop. Yeah. But in that proposal, do you leave 32 in the lower and put the rest there or do the same 48 in the lower and then simply replace the location? Uh whatever the board decide, but I would suggest do 48 um on smaller loop and the balance here. Cuz you have the same problem. Yeah.

[clears throat]

So it it sounded like you had a reason for wanting it was a timing issue for wanting to put the additional 16 Yeah. at site one for now, right? Correct. Could you Cuz they temporarily? No, they See, that's what the thing with them they don't deliver any mail temp- any location temporarily. Once it's on their route, it's permanent.

[snorts] Hey, site So which Which of the the 32 are the excess of 32 houses are complete right now? So the smaller loop and coming up up the hill on the this side. So 23 24? Correct. That side. Yeah. So what we're thinking about basically, it's paved. Yeah. And you So you'd have to make the parking area. All the parking area is done. Everything's paved.

That's that's done? Yeah. So it'd be just if there's a Conex there, moving that and Correct. and making the pad for the mailbox. Yes. Sounds like about the same thing you got to do except moving a Conex Yes.

for the other site. Correct. I like down below better myself, but I'm not a mail person, so Well, I am a male, but I couldn't help it. My my my first house here in Grafton, it had a cluster box and I had to go [snorts] to the other end of the road, which were Rose Lane and Braille Road hit. That's where our box was for the whole development. So I mean, that's what they're doing now in a lot of the new developments. The post office is making them do cluster boxes. Oh, that didn't have mailboxes? Mhm. Braille Road.

Braille. Oh. I'm surprised you I wonder did they do it for the your Elmrock? I mean, I know you I know you didn't build it, but No, there's there at the beginning. It's a cluster box.

So So what what are we doing? I mean, my I'm interested to hear what others' thoughts are, but I think it makes sense to put the balance of what's left everything but that initial 32 into the second location and have that second location be between 98 and 99. Where's 98 99? Can you have three locations? I I agree. Can I just uh show you the grading map on this between the two? Cuz it technically right now, I think we didn't pick it cuz there's a snow storage area and there's that little basin between 98 and 99 on sheet 5.1. We don't have it on with us. But it sounds like the locations probably is a choice of the contractor. But whether or not to go above 32 and put one more mailbox in the short loop versus bringing it back here. Because it's permanent, right? Once Once it's done, it's done. Yeah, the post office

I don't think the post office wants more than They really wanted one, but we convinced them for two, so. So when when I look at at at the print, Yeah. if we put 48 boxes in location one, Yeah. you know, where the line where I I would think the the units that are going to go to location one, it's going to be something like um probably 61 and 62, that building down or actually up comp, but but to the right looking at the picture. Correct.

And you can kind of draw a line over to like 74 73, I think they would go that direction. May- maybe 75 76. Yeah. And then 25 26, it's somewhere in there is where the line would be if if you're if you're counting 24. Why Why are you assuming that's where the line would be? Well, I So you you got to get 24 of these buildings so for 48 units, and I would think you'd want them to be the ones that are closest to that location. But if they're building in order coming up the hill or so 23 24, which is These two, yeah. That would be going to one.

building this way. Well, so I think it's just in it So what what's the order of So we're building up the hill, so if you look at 71 73 coming up Yeah. and then on the other side is 23 25 going up there. So then and how many are built presently? Uh there's 22 buildings built. So we're right at the almost at the coming up the hill almost at the top of the hill right now. We're at unit number I mean, is it your intention then that that going up the hill until you get your 48 units? Yes. And then come to

It all go to to one, so you could get up around 82 81 82. Yeah. And they would be going to location one. Uh the 82, correct. Well, if that's the case, then then it certainly doesn't make sense to have the second location where it's where you currently have it, right? Cuz I mean, see, the thing is yeah. But I mean, I don't assign the boxes to it's assigned by the Yeah, he doesn't. You're not saying which unit's going to which box. That's the post office does that.

Right. Are they delivering there now? Yes. To the small loop. You sort of do say though because wherever you put that box, that's where they have to put it. No, I'm saying they I don't assign what who goes to what box. The post office does that. But you That's interesting. But I It'll be decided to a certain extent. If you've got 48 mailboxes,

Yeah. until you get to that 49th house, Correct. they're all going to have to go to that if you don't have that second bank of mailboxes built yet, there's only going to be one place for that for the post office to assign them, so Yeah. That's what I'm saying. They get final say, but it's it's going to be a a fait accompli. So this is what it looks like right now. This picture was taken 3 weeks ago. April 9th.

[snorts]

Yeah, so I mean, all all those going up there are going to be going to location one. Right. Unless you unless you get location two up and running Immediately. Right away. Yeah, immediately. And but you say you can't do that. You I I can get it up right away. That's not a problem. Now, the snow snow storage, couldn't you put snow storage up where you propose? Where you where Yeah, you could. Or if you look at that basin is you could put it over there, too. Cuz that basin is in the in the grass. So, that's not Yeah, it's not a problem at all. That's not a problem. Yeah. You probably, even if you had to go by the mailboxes, you could probably get by them with something.

Yeah. I got to be honest, I don't feel strongly about where it's located on the circle. It seems like I'm not so sure there's a I'm not so sure I've seen the benefit of of having it at one place or another within that circle. The big loop. The big loop. The where I see the benefit is just avoiding every single person getting mail from that box from driving all the way around the loop. Or all the way to the furthest point. I mean, isn't somebody going to have to be doing it anyways? Like, these folks here are going to have to go all the way around. Yeah. But I guess I'm assuming they're I mean, my stuff coming coming coming from work. I don't know why there's going to be 48 in the first one. Why you're going to have people in the big loop going into the little loop to get their mail? Right. But that's between him and the post office, so.

[laughter] [snorts] Yeah, I kind of I I I agree, Peter. So, now So, somebody who lives in in uh 29 or 30 20 Yeah. Or actually, probably 36 35 36, or even further around the way things are going. Yeah. They're going to come home from work Yeah. and they're going to they're going to loop the little one, Yeah. get their mail, and then go home. So, it we're going to force them into the little loop when they shouldn't have to. So, it's extra traffic.

Correct. And in my mind, they could go to the one I'm being I I doesn't feel right. I'm suggesting turn around and go back to 20 whatever number you said, yeah. I I Yeah, I I I It seems like we should stick with what you had in the letter, and that's 16 or no, 32 at And even 32, right? That's means some from the big loop are going to go to location one. Correct. 10 more. 10 11. So, that's 22. Yeah, 10 more units. And that's probably not too bad. Yeah, it'd be the ones that are right there in the intersection. Mhm. Well, I mean, it's not. It's it's people are it's the What you're telling me is that the post office has already said that those houses going up the loop are I've already been assigned to Yeah, the first one.

But we Yeah, I I think Whatever they're the closest to it. Yeah. And I think we can minimize how much more of that happens. Yeah. Everything on the little loop's done, right? Correct. I It seems like you're I Again, I don't feel strongly I don't feel strongly about the location. I'm ambivalent on the location, but I think it should say 16 or 32 at the little loop. The rest of them on the big loop. I mean, it's all the little loop people will be in their location. Yeah.

Some of the big loop people will have to go to the little loop, but the bulk of the big loop will stay within the big loop. Okay. I'm I'm okay. And there seems to be more space by 45 and 46 Yes. than up at the small loop. Yeah. To add an extra box or two. Yeah. So, where are we putting it? There. I'm ambivalent. Proposed. What do you think of between 98 and 99? So, the proposed is next to 45 or 46.

I think that spot's fine, but I feel like they walked it with Tracy and the postmaster, and they probably looked at the whole site, and if they chose this, I'm I'm okay with the you know, where they have it at 45 and 46. But And I'm not sure about the basin and what he's talking about. But part of the reason was there's there was something in that location, right? 98. Between 98 and 90 90 8 and 99. Yeah, it's more it's like a like a We have equipment and stuff parked there right now. And that was part of the decision, right? Yeah. So, it was because something temporarily was parked there. Yeah, that's just

thought you said there was like a drainage basin. There's the drainage basin there, too. You said that wasn't And and storage. matter. Would that side also not being completed until sounds like the end? That that might be a rough You said it's already paved. It's already The whole It's all paved, but you're going to be building those houses like there's going to be more activity construction activity down there than what there might be by the time, you know, these start getting built up around the end of the loop.

But that's temporary, too. Yeah. And what I mean, right now you can drive the loop. Yeah. I want to say I did it twice though. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Again, I'm ambivalent. Sounds like K is leaning towards 45 or I'm more at 90 the 98 99 location. [clears throat]

Alex, what are your thoughts? Alex. What are your thoughts, Alex? On on what? The location? Yeah. Um the original that was I mean, the original that was proposed, I said I don't I agree with you guys. I don't think it it makes sense. Um I agree if he can move it to, you know, where you're proposing, Brian, is uh makes the most sense. Jiffy, what what do you think? I don't I don't put too much emphasis on what the location cuz it's going to be equal when it's completed. I understand the constraints right now. But the key thing is the 32 or 48, which I think may wrong. I'm thinking. Brian, what do you think? I'm on the same page with Jiffy and

[clears throat] Having the small loop have less instead of 48 32. Is that possible? And then wherever it will have um 16 Uh eight. 68, yeah. Yeah. Is that too many in one spot? No, it's not too many. It's four boxes. Yeah, okay. So, you and the postmaster didn't discuss this other location.

No, we didn't discuss this location. I wonder Do you need an immediate decision? I wonder if we should have him discuss it, or I guess we could if we're going that way. We could go that way, and if the postmaster says no, then we have to ask to go back anyway, so. Right. I would think the postmaster would think it's less traveling for them. That's for sure. I mean, we we we could send them off to go talk to the postmaster, or we can issue a decision, and he has to go off and talk to the postmaster. So, it probably doesn't matter. Unless we Yeah, it might work out that way. Then he doesn't have to come back if we

Right. Exactly. So, Unless we vote on the site they picked and just say yes and agree with what they chose. If we want to change it, he's going to have to go. It sounds like it sounds like more people want to change. Yeah. So, I you know, I was going to do, you know, a motion that basically, you know, modifies the letter to specify second location at between units 98 and 99. Just go for that. That's that's what you got, and if the postmaster says no way, then we'll see you next week. Okay. Got it. Next time meeting on the sixth. What's that? Your motion? Uh it will be in a second. Mr. Chairman, I I do have one other issue. [clears throat]

Sure. And I and I and I and I know that I'm stepping into something that's an open issue, but I I couldn't help but notice that the drawing that you've given us Yeah. Right? So, the approved drawings were back in um 2022. Yeah. And this has um the summer of 25 modified detention basin. So, first and foremost, I I don't want to reference this cuz we haven't approved any modified detention basins. Got it. think that you're talking to Tracy, or we're trying to figure out well, how to deal with that.

Yeah. Um but you know, I I just want to I just want to point that out that that's that modification came after the endorsed plans. Yeah. You know, and I think you know that. I think Tracy knows that, and others know that. Um so, I don't want to reference this plan, either. I don't want to Okay.

accidentally approve this plan. And I don't think we even need to. So, We can reference the original plan. We we could Yeah. But I don't even I don't even know if we need to do that. So, here's here's what I We we've all seen the letter. And typically, what we do is um a motion to determine if the change is insubstantial or not. And if we determine that as a substantial change, then we have to go through the public hearing process. Um, but I think I think we're leaning towards this being an insubstantial change. So, my motion is uh I move that the notice of project change dated 13 April 26 modified to specify the second location second I'm going to say second mailbox location is located between units 98 99, right? I got that right, right? Yeah, 99. is an insubstantial change. Second. All right. Ms. Reed? Yes. Mr. McCusker? Yes. Mr. Adam? Yes. Mr. Mejia? Yes. And chairman votes yes. Thank you. And I didn't reference any uh drawing or anything like Yep. Could we get this show that uh on the as-built when we're uh um finishing the project correct? That new location? Well, I I I don't know. I mean, you know, changes like that I I don't know if those are substantial or not. I think that's what we're kind of waiting for some No, I I think you're talking about the mailbox stuff. Yeah, mail Oh, the mailbox. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Cuz we've just said it's okay to move them. So, yeah, you do have to eventually run the on the as-built so that it's in the right spot. So, we don't have to get What I mean is we don't have to get any plane uh sign right now. No, they'll Okay. just be approval of the letter

Yeah. is Yes. Yeah. I'll take that up. I I think that's I think that's correct. Okay. Yeah, and I'll let Tracy know. And then you can let the post office Just let the post office know about the new location. If they have an issue, then you may have to come back and talk to us, but Okay. See what they say. All right. I mean, you guys walked it, so they might be okay. I don't know. Just go talk to I I talked to him today. I'll talk to him tomorrow. Okay. I'm gone till Tuesday, so just either eat should be an email or call me and I'll get back to you on Tuesday. All right, got it. Okay. One last question. One last question. Yes. When do the street lights go up? The street lights in like uh this like two weeks uh no, in like two months. Okay. I just ordered them. They're like 8 to 10 8 to 12 weeks out actually.

I know you've got some solar powered ones up there. Yeah. Those are just temporary. Well, I figured that. So, we're uh we have just put the couple had to do couple of stuff and then we ordered them already. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks. These these next guys are real nervous, like [laughter] They did all that for mailboxes and Now what? Imagine what's going to happen for a whole restaurant. [laughter] All right. So, case number 90 or 924 92 Worcester Street.

[clears throat]

Hearing board, is there a better way to set this up for these on cameras or does it matter? Um I would set them up probably right over there by that easel and then Bill can swing a camera over there to see, but I'm going to have them also up cuz this is what you emailed me, correct? Correct. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah. Might be helpful to the board. But he's going to he's going to he's going to do a presentation from those. Yes. Right. But for the cameras and the public viewing, I think he'll be able to access them, just not maybe see every time he points to it, but I'm sure if it's a bad spot, Bill will speak up and let us know. [snorts] Perfect. Well, while we're setting up, let me just introduce myself. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Matt Eckel.

Mr. Mejia. Hold Wait, sorry. I need to read the notice. Oh, [laughter] apologies. No, not your not your fault. The chairman has to read the rules, too. All right. So, the clerk will read the petition and then the petitioner will have the opportunity to present their case. Um I guess the petitioner will have 15 minutes to present, but we haven't enforced that. Um the petitioner shall present the required information and all comments should be specific. [snorts]

Any opposition will have time to speak. Um Anyone wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition will then have an opportunity to do so. Uh letters received in favor of or in opposition to the petition will be read at or will be posted on the um ZBA website for this application. Uh anyone that speaks, please state your name and address for the record. Uh the board may ask questions from time to time. However, all conversations should be directed through the chair. Uh after all the evidence is presented, the board will enter into discussion and render a decision. At any time during the hearing and prior to a decision being made by the board, the petitioner has the option to request that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice or continued to a later date, at which time the petitioner could provide additional information favorable to the petitioner. So, at this time, I ask Ms. Reed to read the petition. The Grafton Board of Appeals has received a petition from Adam E. Valderelli, Esquire, um um McDonald's USA for 92 Worcester Street, requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance um from section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Bylaws to allow for parking within 10 ft of the street line and a variance from section 3.3.3.4 of the Zoning Bylaws to allow for a reduction in the 10 ft minimum landscape buffer requirement. The board will conduct a public hearing on April 29th, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. in conference room F at the Municipal Center, 30 Providence Road in Grafton to consider this request and or take whatever action is necessary, including the granting of a finding, special permit, variance, or other necessary relief allowed under the Zoning Bylaw. Any person wishing to be heard in conjunction with this request should appear at the time and place designated or by letter to this board in

time to be read at the hearing. Um Zoning Board of Appeals, Brian Waller, William McCusker, Kay Reed, Alex Mejia, Peter Adams, Jeffrey Thomas, and Brian Langeman. Okay. Turn it over to the applicant. Thank you. Good evening once again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Matt Eckel. I'm an attorney with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant McDonald's USA LLC. With me is Mr. Eric DeBruhl from Bowler, the project engineers. As mentioned, we're here tonight seeking relief for the proposed development at 92 Worcester Street. Uh the applicant is proposing to raise the existing abandoned structure, which you can see uh in the uh exhibit up on the easel right now, uh and erect a new roughly 3,050 square foot building to be utilized as a food establishment with drive-through service, specifically a McDonald's restaurant. Uh the use we believe will serve to activate this underutilized and challenging site at this fairly prominent location along Worcester Street and provide a food service option within the community business zoning district, which it's in. Uh the site, and we'll go through this in much greater detail, but presents a number of of challenges. Uh towards the rear of the site is both flood plains and wetlands. Uh and you can see those uh marked with the blue and green lines there. Uh it's not very prominent on this photo and image, but the road and property also kind of curves from plan north to south. Uh and we'll illustrate why that's important as we go through the plans as well, but line kind of pushes back towards the property, even though maintain a relatively similar distance from the street itself, uh we have bought some some mass dot land there, so where they have some of their own landscaping and

the sidewalk. So, it's kind of a unique condition where we comply on the top part of the plan uh that you're looking at, but not as you move uh plan south. Um so, so those along with few other particulars make this a very challenging site. I'm sure the board is familiar with this site and and some of the challenges that have gone along with it throughout the years. Uh and based on those challenges, we are seeking variances as read into the record for both parking within 10 ft of the street line, uh as well as to allow a reduction in the normally required 10 ft landscape buffer. Again, we have some mitigation we believe for both of those variances and and good reasons to establish those hardships uh and criteria for a variance, but that's kind of a the overall summary. Uh in terms of the existing conditions, again, you're you're looking at the image and I'm sure the board is is somewhat if not very familiar with the site. Uh the existing structure is is somewhat located in the center of the property uh approaching the the wetlands there in the back to the green and kind of uh formed along the the existing flood plain, so to speak. Uh but as you'll see as you move towards the right of the plan, uh a number of the existing parking spaces as well as a a large area of pavement is already towards the back of the site, which really isn't conducive with the changes in the environmental features. Uh you can even see some differences in the pavement because of that to be repaved because of all the struggles that that happened back there. Um so, in terms of the proposed use, we got into this a little bit already, but the total of 26 parking spaces are going to be provided, which meets the requirement. Uh the parking spaces, which will be shown further on an additional plan are largely along either front or kind of towards the top left portion where it looks like the the property bows out a little bit there on the left side. We're going to have a nice parking court there that you'll see better in the plans that we show. As mentioned, this would be the use would be categorized as a food service establishment. The structure itself as

proposed is the smallest possible prototype for the user. So we're already trying to work within the constraints of the the site and don't really have any wiggle room to change that unfortunately just because it already is on the lower end of what they require for one of their buildings. That being said, we're working hard to make this site work. Again, there's good justification for what we're doing and we can make this a good site with the relief requested. We think it'll improve the site. Obviously, it'll activate it. It's abandoned right now. There'll be less impervious pavement. There'll be additional landscaping. There'll be storm water drainage. All the benefits that come with the a new development and a new building will come along with this project and hopefully remove some of the detriment for what we think is hopefully not the biggest variance request. We also think as I mentioned, you know, we clearly we believe have a hardship here on a number of fronts and so we believe we meet that first criteria of the requirement within the bylaws for a variance. These conditions are very specific. If you look up and down this corridor, you may find one of the three or four things I mentioned whether it's a slight curve or some wetlands or flood plains, but certainly this is a bit of a perfect storm to, you know, excuse the pun there with the wetlands and and the wet site. So we believe there is a hardship. These conditions are specific to the site. We don't believe there's a substantial detriment to the public good. Although there's a reason to have some some buffering out front to beautify the site. We think we we make up for it with some of the natural environmental features towards the rear of the site. We are going to propose landscaping where we can. Again, some of this land along the sidewalk as you kind of right around the middle of the plan, that is MassDOT land. So we don't own right up to the sidewalk. So we have to work with them to install any kind of landscaping, but wherever we can and certainly around the building, we intend to to beautify

the site with with landscaping. So we think we're going to clean up the site and activate it and and hopefully bring people in in Grafton and the surrounding neighborhood to the site to promote some some commerce and just overall activity. And we don't believe it substantially derogates from the purposes of the bylaw. Again, the the variances we're looking for are well-intentioned, but in fact, even though we in some points get to about 5 ft from the property line with the parking, because of that substantial buffer with MassDOT's land and the sidewalk, we actually do exceed 10 ft from the quote unquote street line in all places, which is an improvement for what's there now. As you can see um right along here, this existing condition, this is all kind of a parking court now. And you'll see this much better when Eric goes through the plans and you'll see the existing conditions, but there's, you know, plus or minus a dozen parking spaces that already infringe upon this 10 ft distance from the street line. We're proposing about four to five and the distance that we are, we're much closer to compliance than what's there. You can also see from this picture here that there's really little to no landscaping. So any landscaping we do is bringing us closer to compliance than than what's there now. We're also proposing to close a curb cut thereby obviously reducing some pavement and creating an additional kind of connecting corridor of landscaping. So again, another improvement that we think comes along to mitigate the not strict compliance with the bylaws, but certainly meeting the intent of it is to beautify the property and make it more warm and inviting and and active in general. With that, I think I'll I'll pause and turn it over to Eric. He can walk through the plans in a little bit greater detail. Again, we have this aerial existing conditions. We also have a site plan that overlays the existing conditions to what we're proposing. So we can really highlight There's a mic right there you can see. So just make sure you talk into it so they can record it. Absolutely. Okay. Is that is that

loud and clear? Yeah. Yeah. Perfect. Again, for the record, Eric DeBruhl, Bowler Engineering. Matt covered really the existing conditions pretty succinctly. Just again, highlight some of the the design criteria that we have to keep in mind or that we did keep in mind that makes this site fairly challenging from an an engineering perspective to kind of make all the pieces work together. Again, it's the this blue line, that's the 100-year flood plain. Everything kind of plan south of that is is the 100-year flood plain. The wetlands really surrounding the site. You can see it's effectively fully developed all the way from the front property line almost right to the wetlands under the existing conditions. And then some of that that rear pavement area that Matt was suggesting, you can kind of see it's been replaced and actually you can see some puddling that's actually going into the paved area and that happens in the springtime with the snow melting and and such. So we got to make sure that obviously anything we develop, we don't want to continue to have that happening. And and the reason really for this pavement failing is the ground water in that pavement section is so high, the freeze thaw that's happening. So you'll see when we when we took this, we really wanted to pull away from that for for some of those reasons. So we'll move along to the site plan. This is the same site plan that we submitted. We just added some color to it for presentation purposes. But effectively, you can see almost 16,000 sq ft of additional green space that we're giving back. So we're removing significant amount of pavement from this and pulling away from that wetland line and where some of that flooding was happening. And and from a flood plain perspective, what's going on with the proposed site plan. Again, it's a 3,000 sq ft building, McDonald's restaurant with drive-thru, very typical layout you see at a McDonald's. We've actually removed the center driveway. There's three existing driveways. We've removed that center driveway to give that back to landscaping.

So Eric, why don't you stand there and move the easel a little bit this way and kind of point There you go. Perfect. I didn't even see the mic there. So that that was on me. Sorry. Perfect. Again, so a very typical McDonald's layout. One-way circulation around the building. Compliant with parking as Matt as Matt mentioned. Again, giving significant landscaping back to the rear for those reasons that we mentioned, flood plain and then that some of that that ponding that was happening at the rear there. In terms of the the parking, I'm going to actually flip to to the next exhibit. Eric, before you flip, I just would like to take an opportunity just to quickly highlight exactly what we're looking for just so it's clear to the board. So these spaces right here would be the ones that need the relief. This dotted line shows the 10 ft setback from the property line. So you can see as we go left to right, you actually you have both the 10 ft buffer. You also have parking spaces which comply with that 10 ft from the street line. But again, the street line even here is greater than 10 ft cuz you have some extra space and then the sidewalk. So where we're seeking the relief for the parking, we have between probably about 4 to to almost 10 ft as you move right to left. But then again, you have that overlapping green space that's MassDOT's property and then the sidewalk. So in totality, we're probably closer to about 12 ft from the street line. Just got to move this one closer, too. Apologies. Oh, no. I just want to make sure. So that's for the parking and then again, in terms of the landscaping, we we can meet it here on the left side, but where where the property starts to curve a little bit and MassDOT kind of expands, we got we got a shy right here at this point, pinch point, and then it starts to grow again. But again, we believe we're meeting the intent of having essentially a 10 ft buffer, just not all on our property just cuz of the existing

conditions. So I just wanted to jump in and highlight those two points for what we're seeking relief for with your eyes on the plans. So Matt, move the mic closer to you when you're sitting. Perfect. Sorry about this. [laughter]

Perfect. So this next exhibit is the same one we just looked at, but we've actually layered on the existing the existing site, the building, the perimeter curbing and all of the parking spaces just so you kind of get a a sense of of where those are falling. And just again, to reiterate, this is the previous developed line at the rear. So we're giving that back to green. And then along the front, more or less holding that frontage line, but we're removing as we go from plan right to left, one parking space that's already non-compliant in that 10 ft buffer. An additional 13 are being removed under existing conditions out of that buffer. That's an existing non-conformance that we're improving. And then this site driveway that's existing, [laughter]

we're closing that off. Obviously, giving that back to landscape to the extent we can and that's where those five parking spaces that are are are requesting a relief from. Um And in terms of you might be looking at this and say, "Why why not just shift the site back 6 ft and make those things comply, right? You got plenty of space. Let's let's shift it back." But the reason that we can't do that is again, the flood plain. So the site again is in mostly within that flood plain. Anywhere that we fill, we need to make sure we're providing compensatory storage for that. As we move the site forward and raise it up a little bit, we essentially filled in the front and we cut in the back if we were to push the site towards the rear, we start to get out of compliance with what we need to provide for compensatory flood storage. Um and so we've thought through this in many different ways and we believe that this site plan, in terms of, you know, making sure it's the most minimal dimensions, the smallest width of building that we can do to make sure that's the most uh the least amount of relief that we could possibly request for for this layout. I think I think with that, is there any other I think the only other comment I'd make is we we did look at this a number of different ways and I might have mentioned in my opening, but if not, the alternatives would potentially be uh eliminating some parking, which then we're asking for parking relief and we wouldn't be complying with that, which we thought was a a worse outcome, or potentially shifting the building forward and putting some parking back against the retaining wall, uh but we don't have a lot of wiggle room there to comply with the 40-ft requirement uh setback for the building itself. Um so, we we believe this is certainly the lesser of any evils. We think this is the best design for the project. We did look at it uh a number of different ways and Eric and his team did a great job looking at all uh the ways to balance it out and really make this very challenging site uh usable, activate it, and bring some life to it. So, I think

at that uh at this point I'll I'll pause and certainly take any questions or comments you may have. Mr. Chair. We'll start. Go ahead. Um Just that case any and have you met with the town planner and and others in the building here and reviewed this and discussed it? Uh in a nutshell, yes, we have multiple times. Um there's a great desire, obviously, to see this act this site activated. Um but we've met with uh Tracy, Fiona before she left, uh other members of the town. So, we we have discussed this uh a number of different times and number of different ways. Okay. Um there's no zoning determination uh from the zoning enforcement officer. I assume you never requested that. So, the the request for variances your best guess as to what's needed. Or did that or did that come from the zoning enforcement officer? In terms of an official form, I would have to check the file, to be honest. I know we met multiple times and agreed verbally and then I sent the full application to Tracy. Um apologies if there's not an official determination form within that or but we did meet and discuss this and determine these were the two. We even discussed if any of this relief is possible through the planning board because we obviously will have con com and planning board as part of this process. Um so, I guess if there's not a form, then this would be our best guess, but it was very uh thoroughly researched and reviewed with Tracy. So, there there's no no no doubt that the the variances you're requesting are the variances that she's going to want as the zoning enforcement officer. Without speaking for her, we did meet and this was the the end end result of that those meetings. Yes. Okay. Are you buying the property?

Or leasing it? Lease. Lease. Um have you done some borings? Uh there there were Yes, there were some preliminary geotechnical investigations done. I guess up my question's going to be, are you going to have to drive piles to put the building in? Cuz that the existing building, I believe, is sitting on piles. I

That's why the parking lot keeps moving and the building doesn't. I'm going to guess that's that's probably what is going to happen. Um I'd have to review the geotech report, but I know the soils aren't aren't great, so that's probably where this would go. Um but we haven't got really that far into the engineering of foundations and and that.

Okay. Um and is the site clean? Cuz there was a gas station there. I haven't Did Did they had did enormous trailers that they were sucking water out of the ground for a couple of years. Yeah, we I I don't know. Okay. But we can No, it doesn't matter to me. It's uh your financing will probably tell you to do that, but Yeah, we thought obviously we fully anticipate that. As the board knows, sometimes CBA's first stop to see if there's a project before you go too far down the road. So, we knew we would need some relief and and came to you, but there has been some preliminary investigation and there certainly will be more. We just need to know if ultimately we'll have a a project to proceed upon, obviously. Do you have uh Is there a comparable um like a structure to this anywhere in the area of this size, I guess? Um this this building is a little bit unique because it's a little bit thinner and longer than their prototypical one. But it architecturally is going to be I we could get you some examples um of built locations that are comparable. I'm just cur- cuz it just 3,000 or 3,100 sq ft seems small. Uh and I'm not saying that there's not anything we're going to decide on. Yeah, we we certainly took took our direction from from them in terms of would this work or not. And as mentioned, this is, you know, an easy answer to would be, can you shrink the building and make this all fit a little better? And the answer to that is is probably no, because it is at the low end of of what's acceptable to even, you know, make this kind of investment and move forward. So, um they're confident they can make this work at this size, but obviously going any lower would would pose a significant challenge to

any kind of development. That that was just curiosity. It wasn't you know, an indication that that drives my uh thoughts. Mr. Chair. Um just by way of clarification, I think during the presentation you alluded to um being in compliance, having more than 10 ft from the street line. I just want to be clear, do you mean to reference edge of pavement? Um so, a street line, property line, you're you're within 10 ft, which is the relief you're seeking. But you're saying you're more than 10 ft from the edge of the actual roadway. Correct. I I think some of the ambiguity comes from the bylaw itself. It references street line and then does not include a definition for street line. Um so,

street line, so where a street line isn't defined in a plan, um I think the bylaw specifies it's 25 ft from the median, um which I I imagine probably encompasses the the MassDOT sidewalk and and any any anything leading up to the property line. Um cuz I was just think- yeah, when I heard the the presentation, I was like, well, so why are we giving a variance if you've got more than 10 ft to the street line? Is it, you know, maybe just out of an abundance of caution or That's in in discussions with with with Tracy, that's exactly it.

Okay. to apply for that and and obviously the argument is that we do comply with the spirit and intent of the law for the the regulation, but uh depending on interpretation, it's better to apply for it. And then yeah, I mean, for the board's um edification, just pulled up the GIS and and literally right across the street from the site, the the plumbing supply house, they have parking that's literally on the property line. Um so, it's certainly consistent with, you know, some of the other properties in the area. [clears throat] And same thing further down, you know, Grafton Liquors and Cancun's, you know, parking right up to the street line. [clears throat] Cancun's, I think they're parking in the street. [laughter]

Close. When they get busy. Um So, um I can see where the variance is needed for the parking. What about the Talk a little bit about the landscaping variance that you're requesting. Yeah, we're So, what what What exactly is I guess it's what landscaping you're not doing or where should it be that you're not? So, it it requires a uh 10-ft landscaping buffer. Um so, I don't know the exact measurement. Eric, you might have it for the left side, um but certainly Sorry for the mic. Certainly at the the pinch point here, some of that same logic applies that we have landscaping, but not on our property, but kind of to the pinch point of the front where our property line almost abuts the pavement is is a a prominent area where you traditionally would have that landscaping. Uh to to the point right across the street, they don't have it. Down at the I believe the car wash has like a 2-ft uh rock Yeah. kind of buffer. So, we think it's pretty uh uh So, it's

reasonable request, but it's mostly right in this area here that has some landscaping, but not that full 10 ft on our property. Right. And to clarify, the um the parking within 10 ft of the street line is the bylaw, the landscaping buffer is from the property line. So, it's a little bit of a different definition, but So, um the the unique unique conditions on the shape topography, blah blah blah, is the wet the wetness. The the wetness in the rear is certainly pushing the whole program forwards, the the curve of the property line, where we can meet it in certain spaces, but not uh all over. Um Yeah, so the shape There's even a topography drop, which probably contributes to the wetness. So, we we have a little bit of shape topography as well as environmental with the wetness. So, wait. Is the light green behind the restaurant, is that water in the future or is that green space? That would be green space. Yeah. That would receive flooding. In the 100-year flood, it would receive flooding um and then in the springtime portions of that might just be just the same way it was under existing. Yep. And will that be either graded or some sort of retaining wall wall something to to kind of stop that from infiltrating the the drive-thru? Yeah, so we built up a retaining wall around the site. So it would be encompassed by a three to I would have to do a little bit more math, but it's roughly 3-ft high wall holding up this side of the site. Yeah, when those big floods it it would come up and and surround it at that point, but never it's not designed to come over and into the site. Sure. So you're going to elevate the site quite a bit. The front of the site will obviously remain at the we can't touch the the

front that's going to meet existing on the front and then just a normal, you know, 1% or 2% grade across until it till it meets. Uh so there'll be sections where it's probably raised here by by 2 to 3-ft along the the back. Yep. So where the light green starts and the dark green, is that edge of wetland? Where is the edge of wetland? The wetland will still remain at the That's correct. Yep. Along this border which is So that won't change. So then I would assume conservation will take 25 more feet. Well, how does that affect you? They'll have a no disturb zone. They do everywhere else. We still have to go before them, but I'm anticipating they'd be okay be happy with us removing the pavement and giving it back to to green space. If that was that your question or like we're going to have to go in there and disturb the pavement that's already there to remove it within

No, I'm just saying what if you lose 25 feet from edge of wetland, how does that affect you? Do you know what your closest distance is between wetland and little retaining wall? Yeah, it's right over there. Yeah, it's going to be it's going to be on this edge. Um I think we're going to be fine on any really anywhere else. This edge is going to be a a little pinch point there. It's going to be within 25 And I know I'm talking about something that hasn't happened. So and I'm not on conservation, so but I just kind of

be a we may need to seek relief with them. I'm not sure the exact mechanism, but but we will be again pulling the site away from an existing condition. Hopefully they would recognize that and work with us, but to your point it's definitely a a point we have to still work through. Jim, this question. Where is the main entrance to the building? There's going to be two. There's one here and then one towards the center. Driving, where's the entrance off Worcester Street? Uh so you're going to have two entrances. There's a full entrance here and a full entrance here. We'd anticipate most, you know, once you get used to the site most traffic to come through here. The drive-thru's here. Pick up your order and then you can exit in either either location. So what's the white building? Yeah, the

That's the trash enclosure. And so the parking is right behind that? The rest of the parking? Correct. There is eight total parking spaces here. And then that would be part of the development. So that's eight and there's 26 in total, right? You're talking about five in front. That's correct. So you have uh six spaces against the building. And the five in front do expand to the the five that need relief expand to the left, but those all comply. Yeah, it's a lot more than five in front. Yeah, it's 12 total. They're just highlighted for which ones need relief with the So that is that is staying. That's not going away. Those parking lots. No, the red ones are the ones going away. On this side. Okay.

Yeah. But the gray ones is over here, those are the ones that are they're going to have that they're going to add. Could could the existing building be used? It modified? Uh not McDonald's wouldn't They wouldn't do it? No. Okay. No, we need something. Yeah, I know that. But I have a picture if you guys do want to see of which most of us have been here when it was um what it looks like when it floods. And how close it comes up to the building.

Well, that would be they could do boat rides to get to the drive-thru. Yeah, I mean there you go. [clears throat] March 30th. Yeah, so it's definitely And it's it's not worse than that. Oh, it has been worse than that. I've I've seen it in years where the water started here Right. and has gone all the way to here. Yeah. I mean I've been here since '98, but this is the most recent I found. I mean I can look and see if they've got other ones, but that was the most recent on near map. And that's the back. This is the back here. Yeah. Yeah. This is the back of the building. Yep. You do know that was a Burger King. [laughter] No, wait. Wait. No, way back.

That's okay. Anything with a drive-thru is fine. Yeah. No, it had a drive-thru it. Alex? What's that? Alex? You trying to get off I think he's trying to unmute.

Oh, he's trying to get off mute. Sorry, can you hear me? So I was trying to get off mute. Um I I just had a question. So the and and I can't see the map anymore, but the kind of the green space slash will be wetland in the future. Why is it that this site can't get pushed back? I I I couldn't hear you too well when you were explaining it. Yeah, so that has to do with the flood plain, not necessarily the the wetland itself. Uh the 100-year flood plain anytime you fill a certain area, you need to provide cut um in the same amount. And so this site is going to be lifted. And so we're filling where where the developed piece of the site is. The rear is being cut. And as we try and shift that that developed site as we have it back it puts us out of compliance with the the compensatory flood storage that we need. Okay. I'm not sure I follow. So in it puts you out of compliance because you're because of the amount that you're cutting like is it could you put yourself in compliance if you were were to do more work or more fill back there? I guess that's what I'm just trying to understand. Yeah, the only the only way we could do it is to continue to thin the site out and we've already looked at areas, you know, thinning out drive aisles and the width of the building. Um so we've got the site as thin as we can um from a zoning compliance standpoint and a yeah, McDonald's, you know, what's going to work for them operationally. Mhm. So that that was one area we looked and we're we're kind of maxed out, uh but we can't we we just can't shift the the site back any further without removing that comp storage for for the flood plain. Okay. And then I did just have another question. I mean I don't know

um just looking at this single pass I I feel like you see McDonald's like a lot of McDonald's with just a single kind of drive-thru behind the building anyways, but does that propose any hazards or that be something that the fire department would approve? Do you know? Uh I'm not sure I'm following your question, but it's pretty standard drive-thru for them. They've got the the lane where you come in make your orders at the two order points. And then there's a dedicated drive-thru lane, but there is a bypass lane. So there is there's still an aisle to get around the drive-thru lane on the outside. Got it. Okay. Yeah, I I couldn't really tell. It looks like there's not, but it Yeah, there's a lot going on in this plan. But yeah, there is a a bypass lane, an escape lane if you will, all the way around. Got it. Okay. Yeah, that was my question. Sorry for No, you're good. I didn't explain it. I have a question on the 100-year flood. Maybe it's on the first um your first poster. How does that go around the building?

[laughter]

It's a good question. So when you look at the FEMA flood maps you're not going to see this line in that fashion. It's an illustration and so that you'll probably see it kind of just comes around in a nice swooping line. Um flood plains if it's a flood plain AE, it's got an elevation associated with it. And so this is an AE zone and it's got a 307 contour. So once you get the the existing site surveyed, you can see exactly then where that 307 is and it just happens to be it hits the building and kind of follows it around and then comes back out. Um so it's essentially going around the building because it's hitting the side of that wall and then where it kind of reveals itself, it goes around and and then back through. All right, got you. So it it recognizes that there's a structure there. Correct. Yep. Yeah, cuz if you think about the structure coming up out of the out of the page, you know, at 307 the building's all the way up to 320 and so it's it's got to just follow that contour around around the 307 on the side of the building. If if the building wasn't on piles as Peter talked about and the building sank like that back drive always sank then that line would probably go right through the middle of the building. Um if the building If the building was sank. Like like the land sinks. I mean I mean it's kind of kind of similar but the building wouldn't be crooked. Right.

But but the building is being held up and that's why it's stays at the 307. And that's why the line follows the building. Yep, I would concede that. Yep, exactly. If this pavement is continuing to sink, you might see this line continue to Yep. to move that way, right? Absolutely. Kind of the land's falling away and that Yeah. Yep. Yep. And I I do think over time that it has happened. I've looked at maps from tens of years ago and I'm trying to figure out why the line used to be this way and I'm thinking I'm wrong. It's like, well, the site's sinking. It kind of does make sense.

Yeah. Well, I I I I think this is an excellent proposal. I think it's going to be great for that site, and you know, um you know, it's as you know, variances are really tough. Um I think that, you know, identifying the wetlands as being unique, not really, uh but you got a good list of findings, I'll support it. Um I I I think this is great. I I I I want to see this happen. I want to see this happen. I agree. You don't We should have thought of this before. Um you don't happen to have a draft decision? Well, I was going to ask the applicant to actually draft a decision and draft findings. I mean, we we can do it and if it's, you know, we're talking about a shed in someone's backyard, we just kind of wing it on the fly. You may want something a little bit more formal. Sure. And we would we would certainly be happy to do that. Alex. You don't want to just modify this? Nope. Oh. We could. I could. I I would think that they're going to want something a little bit more formal All right. than what I than what I do on the fly here. Yeah. Knowing there's always an appeal. We're we're happy to do that and uh formalize it a little bit more. You're the one who's got to defend it, so. Understood. Alex, go ahead. I was just curious going to um Brian, your point earlier, the the I'm trying to envision a similar

site at that size. Do Do you guys have like a 3D model? Uh maybe you haven't gone that far yet, but something that you could take a look at in the meantime. We do have a board that has elevations. It's not it's not 3D, so just gives a little bit of a idea to the board of we we can pull it up. Just elevations, yeah. [snorts] Is it the one against the wall? [laughter]

I've been looking at it for 10 minutes. All right. So, the elevation facing facing the street would be the center elevation. Again, there's the the doorway there and then there's another door on that face. So, that upper left is facing the bank. Yes, the left side. Yeah, correct. Correct. And the in the middle is what is facing the street. That's correct. And then the bottom is the that's the the drive-thru around back. That's right. Yep. Well, I agree with Bill and I think we need the site needs to be um elevated, so. Um I think it'd be great to see see this go in there and make that location. I'm sure you'll do a really nice job with landscaping and with whatever you need to do, but I'm sure it'll look so much better than it does now, so. Yeah. And we kind of have to trust that they've studied this land it I mean, way more than what we're what we can even imagine and doing what you feel um is the best location, the size, it's the smallest. You're making it smaller. McDonald's would rather have a bigger uh building, but they can't based on the restrictions of the site, so I feel like um yeah, I feel like we should um you know, I I like see it happen. Yeah.

[clears throat]

Yeah, I think you you know, there's still steps with college um Yeah, exactly. You know, that it's clearly though a an improvement to the site and environmentally it seems that Any other comments from the board? So, um do Is there anyone online? There's two people online, but they don't have their hand up. I just wanted to show you guys something. A year and a half ago, they cleaned up where that So, let me show you guys something. They dug up a lot of the um sand and the So, let me I'm sharing. Hold on. Give me a sec. So, this is where the gas station was right here. Oh, I picked the wrong one. Nope, right, got it. So, this is where the gas station was. They dug it up. They were digging there for over 6 months and they took out all the sand. So, they might have already remediated that whole area in preparation because I know they were working on it. I know DEP was there. I know they pulled out a ton of dirt and then put stuff in, you know, put clean fill in. I I don't know if Tom went and looked at it, but I know they had some inspections and stuff done there. Not with us, but I think with DEP. Is something else going in there? No, this would be all of the lot. So, I think what happened was they they cleaned up in preparation to do something.

This is the whole lot. So, this is where that other part is going to be and where the dumpsters are going to be. Got you. Okay, it's reversed. Yeah. It's looking at it that upside down. Okay. I just wanted to show you guys that. Yeah. Years ago, they talked about an underground gas plume going towards the the water district wells, but I don't think I don't know if they ever proved if it was Charter or the old Texaco Mobile station.

Okay, so there is somebody online who would like to talk. Um Mr. Carasca, I'm going to allow you to talk. I just need your name and address, please, for the record. And Hi. Yes, Mark and Fran Carasca. Uh we're uh at 33 Palmer Road in Waterford, Connecticut. Uh we're the owners of the property and I just wanted to add um our comments on the cleanup. The oil company that contaminated uh the soil there, uh the gas station had leaking tanks and uh we sued the oil company and uh they spent over $200,000 to clean up the site and it's no longer on the DEP uh contamination site. So, that was a two-year battle we had with the oil company uh that's responsible for the contamination and it's uh now completely resolved and uh the site is no longer listed as a contaminated site on the deep mass DEP website. Thank you. You're welcome. That's good news for the developer.

[laughter]

Did you say there was someone else online? He was the only one who raised his hand. Okay. So, we have to I assume schedule further meeting. Well, we can continue it. Um I I guess we have to continue it if we're going to accept um a draft from them, then that would have to come through uh the public hearing. Bill, closer to the mic. Um So, I think we just need to continue. Um do we have anything pending? Just Snow Road on the 6th. Nothing else has come in. How much time do you want to draft the decision and a bunch of findings for us to look at and Uh just to be clear, so there's no uh date certain past the 6th. Correct.

Would it just make sense to continue it to the 6th and then Uh we're going to be pretty busy. Okay. Uh but that day should only last shouldn't be long. We could do this first. It's going to be a long night. I'll I'll just add Unless the board might to have 3 hours and no more. Like he like he has a hard stop at I'll I'll have a hard stop, so if we take a half an hour to work with these guys, that's a half an hour less for Snow Road.

Yeah. Yeah. I guess my question uh for the chair would be if there's a there's no definitive date, so we would pick one now to have a date certain when we'd be coming back. So, Correct. certainly uh 2 3 week, you know, whenever the board could accommodate us, we can certainly make it work on our end as soon as possible. So, does this delay you from scheduling with Pompton or proceeding otherwise? That's a little bit of a loaded question. Obviously, with not having a closed public hearing and final decision and appeal period start to run, I I just I can't speak for the client about how much they'll put into it until we kind of leave get through that hurdle. So, I would I would say the sooner the better to close this just to reopen step two, so to speak. Okay. I mean, do we want to go for, you know, what would it be uh the 14th? The 14th? I'm [snorts] good. I will not be here, but I can get things set up for you and see if Pamper could cover. Shh. Should be a short meeting. Yeah, it would I I'm good for the 14th. Yeah, me too. I mean, I may do it remote, but I'm good for the 14th. Katrina Embro have affordable housing trust that night.

Oh, I can see if I can move. Okay. I mean, I could do it remote. It's we're moving our daughter to school, so I'll be in North Carolina. Uh 13th? I'm good with any of those days. Again, I I'll be doing remote. do the 13th. Cuz it's it it would be a short meeting. So, I mean, I could do the 13th. You're leaving on the 14th? Yeah, like 5:00 a.m. We're loading up the cars on the 13th.

Mhm. Yeah. Just check the 13th. Alex, are you okay on the 13th? Yep, I can do either. Okay. All right. So, let's go with the 13th. 13th? All right. So, entertain a motion to continue case number uh 924 924 to May 13th at 7:00 p.m. So moved. Second. Do a roll call vote, Ms. Reed. Uh yes. Mr. McCusker? Yes. Mr. Adams?

Yes. Mr. Mejia? Yes. He's shaking his head yes. We'll take that as a yes. Yeah, sorry. [laughter]

I couldn't get off mute. Chairman votes yes. All right. We'll see you on the 13th. And you can email that ahead of time. You know, obviously. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. We won't need this anymore, will we? This No. That's all. recycling All right. So, the minutes from April 2nd. Thank you again. Thank you. Good night. Mr. Langevin Just a couple nits under in the motion for case 923 um the motion references 922. Oh. And the same And the same for 921. Yeah, cuz I cut and paste. Sorry. And then 921 has the date as Thursday, April 29th, 5:00 p.m. Should be Wednesday. Same thing up at the top, too.

All right. So, April 2nd

The 23rd was The 23rd was Thursday. No, we're looking at the 29th. 29th tonight. It's Wednesday. Oh, yeah. Sorry. You're right. And then the the motion for the minutes on March 19th references the 20 February 26th. Oh, yep. It's what happens when the phone rings and I get interrupted. All right. So, have a motion to accept the Thursday, April 2nd, 2026 minutes as amended. So moved. Second. Ms. Reed? Yes. Mr. McCusker? Yes. Mr. Adams?

Yes. Mr. Mejia? [clears throat] Yes. Chairman votes yes. Those are accepted. The April 23rd minutes. All right. So, um looks like we duplicate Manny Hexum Gerard Mon Elmonk. Monk. Well, Yeah, I see. Yep. One can come out. Probably the one that's got the misspelling. Probably. So, Milford Road, yeah, okay. That should be variance. I just got that one. The motion on case 923 references 922. Like I said, I cut and paste. And I was doing these quick today to get them to you guys, so I'm sorry for all the errors. That's why we review them. It's okay. I was the

like it's duplicated. I was the only one in there today, too, so Don't worry about it. Sorry. Meeting adjourned is missing the A. I you know, it's maybe a bit of a nit, but where you say schedule Fishkill Terrace to Wednesday, April 29th, I would just say I would insert NPC. Okay. Schedule Fishkill Terrace NPC or or maybe even spell it out as no special project change.

Yep. Okay. You got on a roll call vote twice on the adjournment motion. Oh, yep. I see that. [snorts]

Uh nobody else has any, I'll just do it a vote we accept the meeting minutes of uh Thursday, April 23rd as amended. Second. Ms. Reed? Yes. Mr. McCusker? Yes. Mr. Adams? Yes. Mr. Mejia? Yes. Chairman votes yes. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Ms. Reed? Yes. Mr. McCusker? Yes. Mr. Adams? Yes. Mr. Mejia? Yes. Mr. Langevin? Yes. Mr. Thomas? Mr. Thomas? Yes. Chairman votes yes. We adjourn.