Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

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's convening via 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 within this meeting. be visible to others if you share your screen it'll be recorded and may be visible later this meeting may feature public comment anyone attending virtually if you'd like to request acknowledgement to speak please use the raise hand feature in zoom and the meeting administrator will enable you to speak if you're only on the phone the meeting administrator will unmute you and allow you to speak Anyone in person, we ask you to step to the podium if you're not seated at a microphone. And all speakers, please state your name and address prior to your comments or questions. And all votes taken during this meeting will be done as a roll call vote. I will pass it to Mr. McCusker.

Here we are. I'll start with the applicant and if anything new. Maybe reconsidering they're going to provide 50% affordability.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Jason Panos for the Record Practicing Law at 246 Andover Street, Peabody, Massachusetts. I'm joined by Matt Morrow, who's our environmental engineer, John Grenier to my right, who is our civil engineer, Jim Venencasa, Steve Venencasa, and Cohen Babcock, who are project principals. And we're ready to get right into the... the uh... remainder of the decision i know there was a little back and forth today uh... and over the really the last couple of days with regard to the conditions uh... restrictions on no salt and D6 conditions just came in between yesterday and today. They've been going back and forth. And we've also had some suggested language that, of course, were the conservation issues related to the vernal pool, potential vernal pool.

so uh what's the pleasure of the board as to how you guys want to take care of that those two issues you want to get right into sodium chloride and it seems like we that's where the discussion point should be is there something else that we should be focusing on and i think what i'm referring to is section d of the decision section d yeah isn't david yep now so dan you sent something just fairly recently, right?

Yeah, I sent both sections yesterday, and then I heard from the conservation agent and the health director today, went back and forth a little bit on some language. So I think around 2 o'clock, I think I sent around the revised Section D. So we could start with that.

Do you want to lead us through it? Sure. I'm happy to. Yeah, I think that might make sense. Does somebody have a better idea?

Well, Katrina, is that the copy we have?

Yeah. Yeah, I just printed that for you guys. You're going to have to go in for Zoom. And I did email you the link at like 6.30.

So which one's the sort of right one? This one, D1. I'm sorry, D11.

Like being at the ocean.

So we taking up sodium chloride first it's kind of out of out of order that's d11 I'm sorry, what was it? Are we taking up d11 first because d6 if memory serves me is the conservation of

Is there a reason you want to go right to 11? No.

No. No, that's what I'm asking. What's the pleasure of the board? Do you want to take it in order?

I asked Dan to kind of lead us through it. I figured he'd start at the top and work something through it.

Sounds good.

We have to get to my sharing. Yep.

Oh, okay. I just did the wrong one.

Go ahead. Conservation Commission. It's subject to the WPA. I know. I don't think that matters. Yeah. pursuant to under the wetlands protection, not the local bylaw.

Do you want to just go through these in order?

Yeah. You know what you did. If it makes sense to do something different.

I think it's better to go through in order. Just on D4, I wanted to flag that we had changed the definition of construction activities in A1. So Traditionally a1 has said it has defined construction activities as including site work But for this decision we changed it to meeting building permit work Yep, so that has sort of a consequential effect sure because a lot of things in the decision Relate to construction activities and historically we've met site work. So I went in and added site work to the conditions I think that's what you intend. So for example the applicant shall implement erosion controls for any areas where construction activities and site work will take place.

Should that be or site work?

Yeah.

All right, so same thing with D5. Yep. And then D6 is the vernal pools, so just to go in order, this is the language that I got from Leah, I think it was this morning. Yep. So, I went, I actually was confused by some of her suggestions, so I went back and forth for a little bit. And ultimately, this is the language. And I know that Jason has some concerns with it. So, it probably makes sense to let Jason make those comments.

Mr. Sure. Actually, if you don't mind, through the chair, I'm going to ask Matt Mauro to step up because he and I have been interacting on this. And he's probably in a better position to articulate. some of these issues, and to the extent they're jurisdictional, then I'll weigh in. But go ahead, Matt.

Good evening, guys. Ladies and gentlemen, Matt Mauro, Mauro Environmental Consulting. It's nice to meet you all. I'm actually very familiar with the Conservation Commission. I've done multiple projects with them. So regarding the comments about what was sent by Leah, basically I had made a proposal to Leah because what we have is, as you guys know, we have approval from the Mass Endangered Species Program. The Mass Endangered Species Program gave us a go-ahead to do the project with certain conditions that were actually pretty strict. The conditions require a biologist to be on site to do a turtle protection plant. The Turtle Protection Plan would have to be submitted to the Conservation Commission. It has to be approved by the Endangered Species Program before any work can take place. That would involve a biologist that would be considered qualified for the turtle work under the state's list. The state has a list of people that they consider, that they accept. I'm not on that list for turtles. I can do basic wildlife habitat. I can do vernal pool certification. There are a number of very qualified ladies and gentlemen out there that I've worked with in the past that are very good and competent biologists that could be on site to do this work. So what we propose to Lear at the same time, because in an overall capacity, normally the turtle studies, aren't necessarily compatible with vernal pool studies. So what we could do, though, is blend those in. And what we proposed is that the turtle person, most of those biologists that I deal with, they also certify vernal pools. So they do amphibian studies as well. So while they're doing the turtle habitat protection and planning. They would simultaneously do the amphibian study to check to see if there was any areas within that isolated wetland that would be qualified as a vernal pool. Concerns that I had with the language in what I was shown today basically was a little vague in spots and Essentially, looking from my notes, the language in D6 related to investigation on what was interpreted based in supplemental communications with counsel to mean final occupancy permit for the final apartment. building, which was the language I was shown later. The initial language that was put in here said an apartment building. It didn't specify. If it's the final apartment building, that would be great. If it's an apartment building, the language is very vague and could lead to a spring season dependency. So in other words, Leah agreed not to require us to pursue a vernal pool certification before the work takes place. And to be quite honest, there is no mechanism in their regulation or in state law to require a vernal pool study. That's not a thing. So vernal pool certifications are a volunteer program only. And we're willing to do that study and in at the same time simultaneously while we're doing the turtle protection work. I, as the team's environmental person, and I'm also the EPA-qualified stormwater professional, I'll be doing the stormwater inspections and the erosion inspections on site. So I can coordinate the biologist along with Leah and Jan at the office to make sure that they're out there. And what we're willing to do is actually give them a two-week notice before we actually do the study so that we can set up an appointment for them. It works out better for both of us. That way, it makes for easier scheduling if you try to do something dependent on a stricter timetable, it could wind up creating more problems than it resolves. But giving a two-week notice and saying, hey, come on out, come out with a biologist, we can show you what we're doing out here, and then work out a scenario with them if they want to do any follow-up work. We don't have a problem with that. I think there may be a misunderstanding that we are kind of pushing back on it. We're really not. What I'm proposing is wording for that to say the applicant shall provide the Conservation Commission and or its staff or agent with at least 14 days advance written notice of the scheduled field inspections and will provide them with a reasonable opportunity to observe the investigations. We're going to give them a couple weeks notice before we go out there and basically leave it up to them. What we want to do is make sure that this process can go smoothly and not create a scenario where the project winds up being tied off on a timetable that winds up being uneconomic to the development, which the original proposal would have done. It could have delayed even building by a year, and that would have actually gone against the grain of what 40B is. It would have created a circumstance where it would have been financially prohibitive and made the project uneconomic. In this way, we balance both interests. We balance the interests of the vernal pools, if there's one there, with the overall turtle habitat, which is going to encompass the whole site, whether it's jurisdictional to the commission or not. The only work that's taking place within any buffer zone in that area is grading for the detention basin. We've ensured that just in case that area did turn out to be a vernal pool, That the vernal pool would be accounted for as far as stormwater quality by ensuring there was no discharge directed within 100 feet of that body of water, which is what we've done. With that, I'm open to any questions, comments, smoke signals, whatever you want.

What exactly is wrong with D6 as it's written right now? Exactly what is wrong with it?

It says an apartment building.

Okay, what language would you like instead of an apartment building?

Okay, so what town council actually came back with, he basically said it would be occupancy of the final apartment building.

What language, somebody please.

Substitute and with final. Perfect.

I don't think that's a problem at all. Dan, do you see a problem with that?

Nope, that was it. And I'd like to actually do that provision with the 14-day inspection. I think it's very reasonable, and it will give us all time to coordinate.

Is there language in there that prohibits the 14-day? I'm just looking for that. I don't know.

You know, but I mean, I'd like to have it specified anyway. I think it would be good. It's up to you guys. But I'm just this is our way of letting you know that we're willing to work with the office. And we indicated that to Jen and Leo.

OK, that's that's great. And that's what you have to do. I'm more concerned with what's in the decision. We're trying to nail down final language. If the language that there is that is there works, then let's go. And we change and to final. That's fine. don't see anything that's prohibiting the 14-day notice i think that's a great way that you all should work together and i'm not even sure that that's needs to be in a in the permit i mean that just sounds like good ways to work together um so i i think we're good to go on d6

And that's fine. The one thing I would add, so if I may, Jason Panos again, there was a last sentence, and I think it's important here, that we propose, and it reads, this condition does not require any additional permitting or approval unless required by applicable law. I think that's important. I want to make sure that we're not tacking on unwittingly a condition that's that winds up negating the wheel at the same time. Well, and right and creates a condition proceeding to the issuance of a of a of an occupancy firm by adding end of D six, you want to add a sentence that says what this condition does not require any additional permitting or approval unless required by applicable law. So basically, applicable law would be the NHP.

Yeah, anything that's under NHSP. It actually wouldn't necessarily be a Conservation Commission regulation, especially if the local regs are waived. You'd still wind up having applicable state law that you'd have to go by, and some of it is not jurisdictional to the Well and Protection Act. So we want to make sure that it's clear that we're willing to make sure that we observe any other applicable state law.

Isn't that sort of like saying...

While observing the waiver.

Doesn't this isn't that sort of like saying this condition doesn't require any additional widgets unless widgets are required?

Um No, because what it does is it ties this condition to the waiver it doesn't supersede it That's ties this condition to the way so you want to say it no additional permits unless permits required by law right and that ties

What to a waiver?

Well, we've requested a waiver from this provision, and I believe that the board has approved it.

We've requested a waiver from the provision of a local wetlands bylaw. And what we want clarified in the language that if any further regulatory work is necessary, it's going to be under state law only. Some of the earlier language tended to conflate state regulation with local regulation. And the whole point of being here is for you guys, as you have been, and I've been watching the meetings from Zoom. You guys have done a really good job. You're acting as the Conservation Commission currently. So what we've done is we put our best foot forward, and I think we've come up with an overall plan that would accomplish both and would actually keep Leah and Jan involved in a very active way. I mean, I've worked with them quite a bit, and I intend to work with them in the future quite a bit in other venues. I wouldn't have a problem with working with them in the future on anything like this.

I don't know. There's nothing in D6 in that first paragraph that implies that you have to go back to the Conservation Commission for approvals. So I don't know why you would need this language.

Yeah, it seems very redundant.

But can we scroll up just a little bit?

Oh, thank you. Appreciate it.

Did you want their language or ours? Mr. Chair.

Always looking at that. I think so now with the change we just made we've got two finals in the first line I wonder if the first one can I agree is is it?

Does it work so that there's only one occupancy permit for per building or is it per unit?

I don't know No, it's one occupancy per building

you wanted to say the final occupancy permit for the final the last apartment building in the project we got rid of that first title yeah i think i think everybody's best just occupancy for the final but that's fine yeah okay i think that's consistent i think we have like landscaping plans or something else tied to before the last occupancy permits issued but

Actually, now that they look at this, they kind of built that language in with what they're asking for, so it may not be necessary to do that.

Okay.

Just so the board knows, it's actually kind of atypical to do a vernal pool study after the fact. Usually it's done before.

Yeah.

But I think the commission, I think Leah's rationale was they didn't have jurisdiction unless it was under the bylaw. There's no state jurisdiction. Is that right? You're not going in front of the court order conditions?

That's correct.

Yeah, so... she was comfortable with having the vernal pool study being done later. And their design, as Jeff, I think, can attest, is protective of that area anyway, right? I mean, there's no direct discharge into that wetland.

Correct. No, we deliberately accounted for that. It is clear that it's subject to the NHSP guidelines. So, yeah, I'm fine not including it.

It would be redundant.

Yeah, I'm fine not including it.

Mr. Chair, that's moving right along How do you do a study after you've disturbed everything in the site? Well, how do you do a study?

Well, they have a limit of work anyway, so they can't do work within that area where the frontal pool might be Oh, okay, but it's just it's just a typical then normally you'd want the study done in advance and

But if there's a vernal pool where that retention basin or sediment pond is going and that has to be moved, then what happens?

If I may, to answer the member's point, the only work that's going in within the buffer zone of that vernal pool area or potential vernal pool area is some grading to accommodate the detention basin. Under state regulation, under surface water quality standards, which tie in with the Wetland Protection Act stormwater management standards under state reg, you really shouldn't be doing a discharge within 100 feet of any vernal pool. So going under the assumption that this could be a vernal pool, The engineering team asked me to look at it. And I said that what you need to do is you need to turn that overflow discharge. It's a detention basin. So it's a retention basin. So it infiltrates. But it has an emergency overflow. That emergency overflow cannot be pointing into the buffer zone. It has to be pointing away, which is what we did. And it still works effectively. What I would point out is that there on on the you have one side of the basin with his grading going on on the other 3 sites you have 4 and a half acres on the adjacent lot of open space that is left that is excellent migratory habitat so it's really not going to disturb any on amphibian migration. from an overall standpoint. The study is gonna be geared towards what is going on in our area of work that is gonna be within 100 feet of the vernal pool, which grading is actually allowed under the Wetland Protection Act. Thank you. Thank you.

So the next paragraph is Leah's language, and this just has to do with stabilization barriers and making sure that those hay bales and things are removed so they're not obstructing migration. Um, D seven has to do with a turtle protection plan. So again, this is, this is directly from, from Leah. Uh, they want to be copied on it, et cetera, but they don't have any jurisdiction over it.

Um, we're fine with that.

Let's see. Next change. Yeah. So D what's now D 11 is the, um, sodium-based de-icing products. So I ran this language by the health director. She was fine with it. And I think the applicant has some concerns.

Yes, we have a problem with it because it basically has a restriction that just doesn't bear out in your bylaw or state regulation. And I made citation to that in my email. If you look at your bylaw, which parrots the DEP drinking water standards and guidelines and regulations in 310 CMR 22, The only prohibitions are that you can't dispose of snow. And I'm reading right from your bylaw now. Section 7. You can't dispose of snow and sweet sweepings collected from outside the overlay district within that sensitive area, within the overlay district, basically. And you can't store road salt, deicing chemicals, fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides in quantities greater than normally associated with household or agricultural uses. To eliminate and prohibit its use entirely isn't contemplated in your own bylaw. It's, as I indicated, far more restrictive than state regulations require, and we just think that, fine, we're not going to sewer off-site snow in the overlay. We're not going to do any of the things that we're prohibited from doing, but we don't want to be prohibited from something that's permitted in your own pipeline.

Why?

Why? Because there's a significant cost associated, and I think when we talked about this at our last meeting, there's not only a significant cost associated with it, it's hard to get. The alternatives are hard to get in the kind of quantities that we're dealing with here. And number three, I think we all concluded that Stop and Shop Next Door is probably using salt product. And so if they're using it and other projects in town are using it within this overlay area, then we're being singled out, and it's unequal protection. It's unequal application.

If I may, through the chair.

Wait a minute. It's also unequal that you're putting 200 apartments on this small piece of land, okay? So let's not talk about equal. This is a 40B. Right. Okay? So, you know, we're not going to talk about equal like that. If there's a reason why, there's an economic reason, and I think somebody's about to speak to that, don't talk to me about equal. Unless you're willing to go down to the number of units that are allowed on this piece of land, then we can start talking about equal, okay? You understand my point.

I understand your point, but I'm reciting the law.

Okay, so I did some research. First, we started, we called around the landscapers that do our properties. We called around some bigger companies that do snow removal. Most of them said they'd never heard of it. Then we got a number from one of our guys to call one of the The suppliers, like the biggest supplier in the area, we call the supplier, they sell it by the pallet in 40-pound bags, and they don't even know if it's even available in bulk. Like, you can't find it in bulk that you can just put in a truck and use. And even so, a pallet of 40-pound bags is $5,000, and that wouldn't get you through once, no application. And that's what I found.

Speaking of that, I've never heard of this stuff either, and I was kind of intrigued by it, so I did a little research. Sorry. Regular town salt is around $64 a ton last year. The towns are paying. Contractors are probably $100 or more, but that's beside the point. This stuff, I found an outfit in New Jersey. Peter's Salt or Peter's Chemicals. Nothing to do with it. I'm thinking about it, though. I'm thinking about it. Are you making money off it? They knew exactly what it was. I talked to a woman there. You can buy it, like you said, in bags, on pallets. But they also sell it in big bags, 2,200 metric ton in bags. And it comes out of Ohio. She wouldn't give me a – I mean, she gave me a price, $3,900 a ton in those bags. So, I mean, it is cost prohibitive. It's probably two tons per – We could put this in, but everybody's going to sneak salt in when we're not looking.

So, why – And I don't even know how, if I can even get it, store it, get our landscaper to use it. I don't even know how we do that, to be honest with you.

I'm going to go suck with you for storing it there. Yeah, exactly. No, I think it's so cost prohibitive that –

I almost lost my mind when I saw it I couldn't believe it 600 to 900 a ton even like if you buy it from like overseas and we don't even have that option they did say it is excellent on one to two year old concrete heard it at all and I said well they want to use it on the roads too but yep I found the same thing you found Peter I was shocked well thanks for doing that due diligence

The issue here is just that if sodium gets into the well and the sodium levels are above the drinking water thresholds in the town's water, then that's an issue, and that'll have to be corrected somehow. It's probably a way to correct it.

If I could speak to that, too, I did some research on the DEP regulations when the health director guided us to the CMR, and I went to the CMR and all the restrictions, and so DEP guidance in the Zone 2 wellhead do not prohibit the use of salt on roads. They don't even permit the use of stockpiling your own snow with salt, only from bringing it in from outside zones. And I'm sure those regulations were done by people who knew what they were doing.

Mr. Chair, the current one, which mentions the calcium, magnesium acetate, or other alternative products is approved by the Grafton Board of Health or its director. Are there any other products, or is that a one-item list?

There's other products that are more expensive because I actually did a research on that.

So there is a list.

There is a list of other products, and that was actually the least expensive versus what the other products are. And the other ones also only come in small bags.

What about calcium carbonate? Isn't that an option? Calcium chloride, I believe. Calcium chloride, yeah.

My notes here, I looked at it about a month or so ago, three times more expensive than sodium chloride, typically reserved for vulnerable areas, but that was doing more of a web type of search just to see if there was a product that has already been vetted out by others.

I did the same. I looked for alternatives.

But isn't calcium chloride more corrosive?

I think so. I think you're right, because I had a list. I don't have it with me, but I did have a list, and it basically had what it was, the cost, and the pros and cons, if it was worse or better. I think you might be right, Peter.

Well, MassDOT had us put calcium chloride tanks. We were spreading that liquid with the salt, and it was so corrosive, they changed to magnesium chloride. There you go.

Well, okay. So, you know, we've heard from the applicant that, you know, this condition is going to be cost prohibitive. We've had some corroboration from a member of the board of those sorts of numbers. And then even, and I'll take Matt's word, even DEP doesn't necessarily restrict this within the wellhead zone. So it seems to me that we probably should pull this. I mean, I, you know, I don't see how we have any other option, really. The very first sentence, as far as showing snow storage areas, I imagine that probably should stay. Do we want to know where the snow storage areas are? Do we have that documented somewhere else?

I believe it said in one section that snow storage areas, that we should add that to the plan, and that should be reviewed by, I believe it was Jack.

Well, it's just saying the approved plan shall show no storage areas. So I think we want the approved plans to do that now. That's said somewhere else. Fine. Otherwise, we should just leave that.

So if I may, just to give you that added comfort, if you want to maybe tie it into Section 7, and there are two distinct sections that pertain to this.

Of the zoning.

Of the zoning bylaw, which parrots the CMR, the state reg. And if you want, I'll give you the state reg. Actually, one other thought. You're going to take it out? Well, the snow storage, though, is regulated in your bylaw. The location of the snow storage within the overlay.

We don't need to cite a bylaw. This is language we have in every condition. I think it's fine the way it is.

What about...

instead of just permitting salt requiring a salt and sand mix instead to does that do anything to produce the well it if you put a lot of sand there it would go back to the way we've seen in the roads 20 years ago or something like that a lot more street sweeping a lot more sediment load to the catch basins which isn't necessarily a problem But the sand just gives you traction. The salt actually melts the snow, melts the ice.

So there's no benefit to that.

Yeah. My experience here in heavy snowstorm, there's no salt action going on. The salting doesn't occur. Snow's just getting pushed around, and it's once the final cleanup or near the end of the cleanup, that's when the salt will come out to melt it, melt what's remaining.

Yeah, it's just the added sand will gunk up our stormwater detention basins.

The trouble with using sand today, besides the sweeping, is you can't just, when you're sweeping it up, you can't just dump it anywhere like we used to do. It's hazardous waste now. Low level, but... Yeah.

And it'll fill up the catch basin that much quicker, end up in a four-way.

And that's a worse hazardous waste when it goes into the catch basin.

Yeah. So I think the issue with the sodium is that I'm assuming the water district tests its water on a regular basis. And if the salt levels spike, they can do something. They can talk to the developer and propose some kind of alternative to de-icing.

Yep. And stop a shop in the town and the state.

That's right, too. The state. Yep.

So we're leaving it at the first sentence and taking everything else after that out.

That's what it looks like. Yeah, okay Thank you in a d13 It was decided at the last meeting that we wanted to have some signage for the open space the restricted open space so I drafted this I ran it by Leah she was fine except she thought that the I the boulders would be spaced out 20 they typically require 20 feet rather than five it's fine i guess but you know alternatively they would just put a split rail fence up in that that location and that's that's the location where we're close to the zone one so that that's what i'm proposing is that there be a a barrier to prevent things from crossing over onto the water district property

there's really two parts to this there's a signage yeah and then there's the fence or yeah so I guess okay with it I mean I'm okay with that I assume the board's okay with it as written I guess really the only that's the limit of in addition I foot no versus some other number shared with yeah I can make that 20

Will they allow a fence instead of boulders? Well, it says... Can it be an ore?

Alternative install a durable fence that does not impede the movement of wildlife. And so that would be at the limit of... That's on the property line.

So that's where the Zone 1 meets up with where you're running. I suggested the first 100 feet because I feel like that's kind of where you've got a trash compactor, you've got some parking. I think that's a good place to create a delineation, demarcation.

Because it says with the property line of the water district, but that's off in the woods.

It makes sense to me to have the fence along the basic limit of tree clearing, which is behind the dwelling units and away from the emergency access roads. The limit of what? The limit of the signage. The plan up maybe? Yeah. It basically tells people, we talked a few months ago about like, dog waste and things like that um in proximity to the well but rather than go to the property line at the water district if you come up to the tree line you've gained another 150 200 feet yeah separation that does seem to make sense and is it is that is that like the lion there is on sheet c5

Yeah, let's pull up the plan. Otherwise, we'd have to go through the woods with boulders to try to drop them along a property line.

And there's a lot of great... You can't disturb that. There's a lot of elevation change out there. So it's impractical to go out to the property line.

It does drop off. Yeah, the limit of work seems more practical.

Which is fine. And we'd probably do a fence, like a split rail or something.

And we're only talking about the area that abuts the... A CPI, please. A CPI, yes. grading and drainage plan we're only talking about the area that abouts the overlay right right this is stop-and-shot right so we're talking about really down just a little bit more Katrina right here

If the green arrow went left a little bit more a little bit more a little bit more a little bit more a little bit More a little bit right about there. That's the tree line just to the left of that green arrow They're proposing to clear left of the green arrow and leave the trees to the right of it It makes sense to me to put the the markers or whatever. They're gonna be for markers along that tree line so

I think there's two things. There's the signs, and then there's the fence, in my mind. I guess I was more concerned about the Zone 1, which is that curved line that's further down the plan. And that's what I was proposing, is that the fence would be down there. But to John's point, if you'd rather put the fence at the tree line down there, that's fine too, right? It serves the same purpose.

Yeah. Yeah, we're fine with that. And so if you want to go a distance in the flat area behind what's shown as Building 2 that we're talking about?

Yeah, he's got along the first 100 feet of the property line shared with Grafton Water District at the southeast corner. That's fine.

I would start at that corner of the garage.

Yeah, like with a radius. It's kind of cut off in the corner, but that bottom corner right there by the garage.

So that radius, that was... That's the water. That radius is the property line.

Correct.

And then it squares off and goes up the sheet.

Correct. Right.

And really what Dan's talking about is the first 100 feet. Along that limit of work.

Right.

Well, it looks like it's one and the same at that point. It's the property line and the limit of work.

For that stretch, which is, it's less than, that's probably maybe 50 feet. What do you think this this probably about 50 feet right there at that flat part? That's and then when it curves and then when I so so the first hundred feet of the limit of work hundred feet from the from the intersection this the intersection of the property and The Grafton Water District at that radius.

Yeah and go hundred feet a hundred feet north Yeah, mm-hmm.

That's fine

Right. I think we all are on the same page as far as what we want.

Just articulate. So just starting at what? Starting at the intersection of the What do we call that?

The intersection of the the property, the radius of the

Is it the intersection of the water district land and the country plaza land?

Is it that land or the 400-foot well zone radius?

Which that's what it is. The property line, I think, is the 400-foot.

Oh, it is?

I don't think so. Unless you know different, Jeff. I do not know different.

just for context so since we were referencing 100 feet in the at least we were in the draft condition according to the gis that arc the length of the entire arc is about 303 feet so the first hundred would definitely span the the stretch that southwestern borders the limit of work yeah yeah so that's the point yeah and then 100 feet along the 100 feet along the limit a little bit of work yeah

That's it Right, I guess I was waiting for Dan I can clean up flip that up later, but okay, that's the concept right? Yeah. Mm-hmm. All right. All right. So next That's it for D. Okay.

I don't think there was anything at E. I Don't think there's anything actually Yeah

Yeah, that's it. Until we get to the waivers, but we've already done the waivers. So do you want to circle back to A?

Yeah.

In the findings, so you asked me to kind of wordsmith the findings that Jason had proposed, so I've done that. I'll open that document up. We added this sentence at the last meeting.

I'm just trying to get caught up to you here.

Oh, you don't have mine.

I quit sharing mine.

Why am I not?

You might have to go back in and share again.

Okay.

Somehow I must have taken you out.

Here we go. So the red line sentence is a sentence that we added at the last meeting.

We're starting from the beginning.

Mr. Chairman, I've got some items way up at the top before giving that sentence. So we start by referencing all the way up. June 7, 2024. And I don't know what that date is. According to the project page, the application was received on September 6th. And the application materials were dated August 22nd. And that date is referenced in condition A3.

What's the application date?

So according to the project page, it says the application was received on September 6th. The material was received on August 22nd.

So what it's whatever date I stamped it in with the town clerk the version that's on the website doesn't have the stamp So I'm not sure But it's probably definitely it's not just seven Maybe it's just I highlight that as something we need to go back to oh And then in the second paragraph

Of all the dates that are listed, several of those were ones where we didn't hear any testimony. I didn't know if we needed to reference those separately or not reference them at all. And one of them was actually the meeting that was canceled due to the Zoom issues. Wasn't sure if they all still belonged in or not.

It doesn't really matter. It really doesn't.

And then the biggest one was this has the hearing is closed on May 13th. We're obviously still open. Oh, man.

wishful thinking wishful thinking i'll double check that date i'm sure i know i have it stamped in there what i did was i took their digital version and it was before i was emailing everything to the town clerk for them to digitally Stanford in so I'll double check yeah I'm guessing if September 6 is what's on the website I'm guessing that must have come from probably is because we had to have the hearing within 30 days so more than likely that is the correct date yeah we didn't close the hearing

We're still here. Just a quick question. What is the process of the board? Do you keep the hearing? Some towns keep a hearing open until they are ready to file the decision with the town clerk. Others close it, take the 40 days, whatever, deliberate, come up with a decision.

I think what we've done in the past is pretty much what we're doing now, kind of get to a point where we're almost final and then close. Quite frankly, I can envision closing it tonight.

Okay.

Because I think we're very close to having the final version of the decision. And then Dan would work that offline, and then we'd come back and vote on it.

Will that preclude, if you close tonight, again, every town I've worked in treats us differently, will that preclude my interacting with Dan to kind of finalize and go back and forth on wordsmithing?

I'm going to defer to counsel on that one.

Well, I don't think it does. I think people have different opinions on that.

Yeah. No, I know they do.

Yeah, I think if it's non-substantive, if you're just communicating with me, like, hey, there's a typo here, that kind of thing, that's not a breach of the public hearing requirements.

Right.

So if you're making substantive comments and you want to change language substantively, then I think that is a problem.

Right. And I think we would know that as well. I mean, you know, you want us to change something substantive, you're going to come back to us and say this was changed because so-and-so asked for it, and, you know, it's going to be up to us.

Right. So I would say if you think you're going to have more comments substantively, then I would not close the hearing. Right.

Agreed.

And you're going to come back and vote it anyways?

Yeah.

I mean, you have to. So, right, right, right.

Not going to get this far.

Yeah, right.

It was fun, we don't have to. I think Dan's point, so it's up to you guys, really. You think that you're at that point where you're done and fine, you're not.

I think the most of it from where I sit would be, gee, I've looked at this and there was something we talked about in open hearing that didn't make it into the decision that should have, it's that type of thing. And if you, Dan, think that that falls more in the area of wordsmithing, close it?

I think we should just cross that bridge when we get to it and not worry about it tonight.

Well, we have to worry about it if we're going to close the hearing.

And as I said, if you think you're going to have more substantive comments.

Yes, let's leave it open.

I was just going to say, it sounds like you would be more comfortable to just leave it open, and that's fine.

Yeah, that'd be great. And that way we're not constrained.

So were there any other comments before the findings?

I know.

Not from me. So findings one, two, three, and four were proposed by Jason. I might have tweaked the language a little bit, but I think it's basically what he had proposed. Thank you.

Have you seen these before?

I saw I was provided them over the last couple of days.

And you've had a chance to review them?

Yeah.

Want to go through them a little more comprehensively, but yeah, yeah All right So any comments on these findings I Mean I defer to you Dan on these and you know, I think you know you expressed your opinion last time and I Don't think anything's really changed I'm okay with them

No other changes to the findings except for those four Dan I think except for this your number. What's up?

You're numbering.

Yeah, I'll go back and it's all that when we have a final document I did add this sentence Because that's something that you would request adjacent as well which one but the last sentence of finding 21 is I think you wanted to make it clear that the work was being performed as site mitigation. Yeah.

Perfect. Thank you.

Um, just a quick item on C if we can, um, the last sentence about the donation says, um, to the select board for general municipal purposes, the language in the development agreement, if we wanted to match that, um, said to the town, which I'm more comfortable with to the town instead of to the select board. but to be used as the select board feels fit. Is that what it says? Yeah, that's in the development agreement.

Don't we incorporate by reference the development agreement? We did.

Why don't we just say to the town?

We just say to the town.

To the town, yeah.

And also it's Worcester Street, not Worcester Road.

Where's that?

In the last sentence of 21, it's for the off-site intersection of Snow Road and Worcester Road. It's Worcester Street.

Oh, thank you.

All right.

Awesome.

So as we enter the conditions, I just want to flag that A1, we did.

So, Dan, we can just go back to 21. In Mania, did I talk about this at the last hearing? But, you know, through acceptance of the condition, applicant is agreeing to perform off-site mitigation work to address a pre-existing condition at the intersection of Snow Road. Are we okay with that? I mean, because it's, yeah, there's pre-existing conditions, but it's also an intersection of the projects that are making wars. Why are we adding this? And forgive me if we talked about this. Why are we adding this?

I think it's a recognition that it's, It's not just to fix a problem the project is creating. It's both to add a benefit to the project, but also to fix an existing problem at that intersection.

Green to perform off-site mitigation to address a pre-existing condition which will provide a tangible benefit. How about which will also provide a tangible benefit to the project?

If I may, I'd like to... Rather than leave it a little vague about what the issue the pre-existing condition is You may speak to the horizontal alignment of the intersection the pre-existing Horizontal alignment that separates that from the ad addition of a left and right turning lane Yeah

I'm not overly comfortable with it with Dan's explanation makes me more comfortable. I guess I Mean they're accepting it.

So yeah, we're in safe harbor. So it's not as if they can use this somehow to challenge the permit Okay, this is actually there your request. Yes you you want?

Yes. Oh, yeah, and I appreciate it and Because so much is tied to the work, we're going to be hitting the ground running, making sure that we really hopefully get the attention of the town to start the process of the takings and working with the housing authority and so forth. But thank you. Yes.

So moving down to A1, as I mentioned, we changed the definition of construction activities to that requiring a building permit. This clause here I struck that that was think something Jason you you would propose I I don't think it's necessary. I think it's superfluous and I'd rather just keep it out. And you can you could file the plans in conjunction with your submission to the building inspector. You don't you don't need a condition to say that.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that the building inspector isn't going to, and we talked about this. I just want to make sure that the building inspector isn't going to kick us out until that snow road mitigation work is done. That we were going to maybe try as best as we could put things in parallel alignment.

It's further in there, right? I think there's a language in the conditions to that effect.

Okay.

Further down section B or C.

empty to you have was herself district registry it's just mister district registry it's itself i'm on the registry website right now it's western district registry pete's not what's this and we're going to say it wasn't supposed to be used i don't but they did they must have been my because that's what it says right now on the right side but what does the other worcester district that's fine okay as long as we're in the right place

Just to go back to the date issue, A3 is the other place where the date comes up.

August 22nd.

A3 references August 22nd, which, like I said, is the date of the materials. I don't believe that's when we received it.

The date on there is correct, the September 9th date.

September 9th? 9th or 6th.

Yeah. No, September 6th. I'm sorry.

September 6th is the receipt date.

Mm-hmm.

So should I put that date up here, then, at the top?

Yes. Because they had everything dated, and then when they dropped it off to me, it was September 6.

Is that the date we're using in A3? I believe so.

OK.

anything else a 1 to 10 mr. chair a 10 subsection 5 I guess I've got the latest fire truck turning plan that I've got from the full plan set is dated March 2nd 2026 mm-hmm isn't that is that a part of the site plan

uh we've got the fire truck turning plan called out separately and the oh it is the current date is december 11th here it is yeah oh yeah okay good is it a revision through date or is it i think it was it was a separate it's a separate yeah because every all your civil plans were updated to march 2nd right yeah then we did the um

and so on the unit mix I don't know if the applicants reviewed it I don't believe these numbers are correct let me see specifically the two bedrooms we've got 70 units but I believe it should be 68 there's 16 in each of the two four-story buildings and 12 in each of the three three-story buildings

So let's, yeah, we did go through this. So the studio numbers are correct. The one-bedroom numbers are correct. Two-bedroom, 1751 and 68. 1751 and 68 total. So 17, 80% AMI, 51 market, 68 total. OK? Three bedroom, 80% AMI should read 9. Market should read 28. And the total should read 37.

On that point, I guess the would personally like to break out the townhouses separately similar to how the studios are broken out from the one bedrooms just to

cement that two of the eight townhouses would be affordable and then of the apartment you know the three bedrooms and the rest of this so to the chair cone babcock um it doesn't work that way with eolhc it goes by bedroom count so whatever how many bedrooms it is it doesn't matter if it's a townhouse or an apartment it goes by how many three bedrooms you have in the project how many two bedrooms i had my property management do this with our housing uh consultant

So once we get through the chair, once we get past the initial lease up, are you saying that they wouldn't see a three-bedroom townhouse?

Is anything different than a three-bedroom apartment?

What if we do? Would we still have, I guess, to our council, would we still have the ability to break them out in our decision?

Yeah. You can break them out. It doesn't affect what you give to EUHLC.

I'm not sure what I'm.

We're not putting information. We're just splitting it out.

But he said break them out in order to make sure two of them are affordable, but we can't do that. It's about how many three bedrooms and you have to do how many types and percentages. So whatever is done on that sheet was done to those regulations that EOALHC requires specifically.

How many bedrooms are in the townhouse units? Yeah, three bedrooms. They're all three bedrooms?

Correct. So they'll be aggregate with the rest of the three bedrooms in the property and then so much percentage of each.

So you're saying that you could decide to keep all the townhouse units?

Not all of them, no. No? No. There's one at the moment, I believe.

Because from the design guidelines, Dan, as you probably know, through the chair, pardon me, you know, you can't differentiate and distinguish apartment styles. you know, among market rate and affordable. So you can't say none of the affordables are going to look like this. They're all going to look like that. You know, you can't do that. So by definition, some of those townhouses would perpetually carry over.

Right. There will be affordables in the townhouses, but it will be according to how many three bedrooms are in the project. And again, that'll be up for approval by EOLAC either way. They'll send it back if it's not correct.

And the marketing plan. I think, Brian, I think you were suggesting that we as the board want to see a certain number of the townhouse units as affordable.

Oh, I would defer to the board.

But I think... I think absolutely.

Yeah. Yeah. And to me, I don't really see the difference between breaking out studios and one bedrooms. There's one bedroom in a studio. There's one bedroom in a one bedroom. There's... Yeah. These I see as a more fundamental separation in the type of unit. I'd like to see them broken out.

I mean, if the board's goal is to see, how many townhouses are there? Eight. Eight total?

So it's an even number.

Yeah. So if you want to see two affordables in the townhouses, we can put a condition in there that requires that. The state wouldn't care about that, would they?

Well, when I did this list with the housing consultant and our property manager, that was one of my questions, and how do we treat that? And she said it doesn't matter if it just goes by the affordables.

But that's for a report.

But the apartments, it's just considered a three-bedroom.

But we could require that for administration and allocation within the project.

What bothers me is somebody said UHC would require some to be in townhouses. And I've never known that agency to use the word some.

Well, it means some. It's a number. It'll be a number that they decide. Correct. We file a plan. We send this to them. And if it's not within regulation or guidelines, they'll make us redo it.

And what if we say it? We want 25% of those, we want two of the townhouses to be affordable. We'll just say it. and let them come back and say no.

Well, that's an interesting question.

Yeah, I don't know the answer to that.

I really have not run into that. Just like the studio one-bedroom thing, there is no guideline for a studio apartment. It's one-, two-, and three-bedroom, unfortunately.

I think we should specify, do exactly what Brian's asking for. We should specify two of those to be affordable. I agree.

eoh whatever it is come back and tell us no and i'd love to have them explain it to us yeah i don't know i don't think they're gonna say no i think i think they'd want it too yeah my understanding has always been that when you have two different classes of housing the distribution of affordable units has to be the same in both classes right right um i you know it's it's a it's a it doesn't

work that cleanly they just don't they want to make sure that you are not distinguishing between housing classes right and they want to make sure you're not gaming the the you know your nice units allocated toward market rate exclusively.

Well, yeah, exactly. And that's what we're doing.

But, you know, as far as an exact number, two units, two townhouses, you know, I'm not sure where they fall on that, honestly.

So let's do exactly what Brian was asking for. And while we're at it, Can we take out these blank lines at this table as just taunting me over the fact that there's no 50% or 60%? Unless we're holding. Colin, you asked to hold those, right, because you're going to sneak them in?

Yeah, we're placeholders.

Placeholders, because Colin's going to give me the 50 and the 60s eventually. Let's get rid of those blank lines while we're...

So do you want to do this by way of asterisk instead of creating? Because they're all three-bedroom units, so maybe an asterisk at the 80% AMI.

Just have a part of the table says three-bedroom apartment and another part of the table says three-bedroom townhouse.

Just do it that way. Okay. That's what that blank space is for.

Uh-huh.

So we have another section here, right? Yeah. Yeah. You're testing my ability to deal with tables.

I was going to watch you do that.

Yeah. So, you'd have to deduct out eight units for the townhouses, and two of them allocated to 80 percent AMI, and six allocated toward market. All right? and then do the commensurate reductions on the apartments, three-bedroom apartments.

I did just add a sentence. Is that not good enough? No, you're taking two out of this.

Send that to one of the engineers on the board here.

We'll take care of it for you. Clicking the table and hit insert where you go.

Yeah is six and it looks different than on my computer I'm sorry because I've got insert rows insert columns. I don't have that My next line would just see one

are you guys still working out the math there I'm sorry what do you see one okay

I think that's exactly what we talked about get the permits etc before we do any clearing and then complete the work before you start building yep building as in vertical yes and then I added a example which Brian had suggested

So by way of example, the sequence would be as follows. Applicant obtains the necessary approvals. Applicant may but is not obligated to start site clearing and driveway construction. Applicant starts and completes no road work. Applicant may obtain building permits for the project buildings.

Speaking of the permits, did we ever get an answer if the... housing authority can give away a piece of land without without without state approval no without a town meeting without no well without They've probably got two, two and a half, three acres tops.

Hang on a second, Peter. What's up?

Oh, he's coming to speak. It's Jack. Oh, okay. He's on the Affordable Housing Trust.

Yeah, John Kelly, 9 Countryside Road, Chairman of the Housing Authority. We have reached out to EOHLC, and that land is – I still don't see how it can possibly be, but we've done all the research. It's our land. So we can grant a construction easement for them to do this work, and we're working on getting everything together so that we can do that responsibly once this board makes this decision.

Okay. Would it be an easement or a gift? Easement. Huh?

Easement.

So it would still belong to the housing authority?

I think it may be, its ownership may be transported because it's going to go from being land to road, but that I can't give you at this time, that answer.

You might be able to. So, if I may, the way an easement would work, if that's their disposition, is they would still own the underlying fee in the property, subject to the easement, if it's the road, to pass and repass.

In my mind, that makes it a lot easier because if they separate it, can they separate it without coming in front of this board because they don't have enough land anymore for their, you know what I'm saying? That's a good point.

And to your point, Peter, that could be land, it could be a yard setback, it could be something.

It's going to change the frontage of that side of the property as well. And as I said at the top of this, still even after having these discussions, I can't see how we are a almost managerial board of the state's public housing infrastructure, and yet we own this land and can give it away. That doesn't make sense to me. So I do see it how you guys see it, that we are allowed to grant the easement for them to do this, but at the end it's an easement. We're not giving them that land.

Is that true, Joe? Can the town have a road on an easement?

I have no idea with respect to that. I do understand that the housing authority could own that land from the work that our office does with the other housing authorities. Some of those housing authorities, I understand, do own the land upon which a housing authority project has been built. It's not always the case.

Who else would own it?

that's a good question that's what that's what I'm scratch my head about is who else would own it if it is not the housing authority because it's you the housing authorities are not a direct department of the town so Peter towns often acquired easement rights rather than fee civil rights for the roads so that's not a problem okay the only issue I see I don't have the plan in front of me but whether the

the new reconfiguration of the road will create a setback problem for any existing buildings on the Housing Authority property.

So I did, Peter actually called this week and asked me that question, and I did ask Tracy, and she sent me an email this afternoon. So basically, if any land or structure affected by a public action shall be considered legally non-conforming. Grafton Zoning Bylaws 3414, no such lot may be changed, shaped, that a non-conformity with the provisions of this bylaw increased in degree or extent, or a violation created except by a public taking of a portion of the lot. So basically, it's okay if they did it, and even if it makes that lot or that building non-conforming, they won't require what require relief from the CPAs because it was already conforming before that easement was taken.

Okay, so then I can ask her for the we just have to look at a plan that shows where the buildings are in relation to where the works proposed. I have that.

But it would be a taking, wouldn't it? Isn't that how we're proposing it through town meeting? As a taking, we're going to designate the property?

Well, I think what Jack was just saying, it's going to be an easement now versus a taking.

But you can take an easement.

Oh, that's true.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You would take an easement.

But then there isn't an issue with dimensionally if it's an easement.

As far as I'm concerned, it really makes no difference whether it's an easement or an actual fee interest, as long as it accommodates the right-of-way, the expanded right-of-way. I don't care. DOT may have a different opinion on that.

I just don't want it to stop the right-of-way. I mean, the construction.

My preference would be an easement because I think it eliminates all of this concern, but DOT ultimately is going to tell us what they want.

And I don't think they're gonna micromanage that Mike We'll find out Anyway anything else and see So I'll see through just more of the site construction Right already discussed

Um, anything requiring your bill?

I think that's it, isn't it? Yeah, there's nothing else in C. At that point, we've gone through everything.

Yep. Can I add something in? G. G?

G. Yeah.

What's that? G? G. G. That's before 8.

G3?

no red line phasing in of portable units i think this language is intended for single-family homes i don't know if this this may have survived into the other decisions you mean ownership homes yes yeah yeah designated for rent yeah because there's only one occupancy permit per building per building yeah in apartment buildings

So then what was our last rental project Didn't you base this off?

Yeah up in yeah, but at this place I think that's rental.

Yeah apprentice Upton and Pleasant by the last three But this was to address I think we just don't what yeah, we don't want that.

Yeah, I point right. You know, we don't we want the I the affordable units to go online at the same time as the market rate units.

So why don't you start the sentence that the affordable unit shall be reasonably interspersed within the project, take out all of the stuff up top? That kind of has ownership connotations.

I think there's a phasing concern, though. We want to make sure you're not renting all the market rates first. You should be renting the affordable units at the same time as the market rates.

Well, we have to market the affordables first, according to the Fair Housing Marketing Plan, and then the market rate units would follow.

You have to market the affordables first? Yeah, absolutely.

If I will, Colin Babcock to the chair. Yeah, so the way the process works is you have to do the fair local housing. The fair market housing. The fair market housing plan, and then you have to do the lottery, and all that has to come before. So you have to do the regulatory agreement, and you can't get a certificate of occupancy until the regulatory agreement has been signed and approved. And your regulatory agreement then goes into the lottery, the fair housing plan, the marketing. So you're typically leasing them up. before you start leasing and then at the same time. And if you did it in multiple buildings, so if you did, say you did building one, building two, you're going to have to plant each building and it's going to be approved by EOLHC.

Yeah, actually, I don't mean to contradict, but the regulatory agreement would come in conjunction with the building permit with final approval.

Correct, before you get a building permit. I'm sorry, I misspoke. Before a building permit, not an occupancy permit.

And then within that final approval process through EOHLC, you would have to present your affirmative fair housing marketing plan. and then follow it. And that would also, we have the 70% set aside, right? Yes. The local set aside.

And that plan would be signed by the town as well as us.

EOHLC.

As well as EOHLC and recorded.

Yep. All right. What if we change the language to what I just made here?

What if we say at a Worrying but at the same rate as the total affordable units in the project So there's 25% so they can only get a rate of three to one three to one I'm sorry.

I just totally lost you on that Would you mind repeating affordable units will be phased in at a rate of three to one or one to three to the market units? Just use the numbers

I worry about being overly specific because of the bedroom mix in the different buildings. You could get into a whole bunch of rounding errors.

But it would just have to be more than, so they would have to err on the side of the affordable unit.

And I guess, could we figure out a way to word it so that it's cumulative, not necessarily building by building? So, like, building one goes up. That's the only building. Building two, it's not that building two needs to be three to one. It's that everything, building one and two combined, should be three to one.

This isn't saying, this isn't going by building. So, if the first building's rounding errors that we need to, they just have to round up. And then when they get to the next building, presumably they'll probably be able to round down. You know, they just keep doing it three to one, three to one, and keep rolling it out that way.

It's all going to be addressed in the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan, so why don't we just refer to that as approved by the town, EOHLC, and the applicant. Right.

I've never seen that get into phasing like that. Well, we're not phasing the project.

We're not phasing the project, right.

No, we want you to phase the affordables. well this is very important to this town right because we had a project we've lost two affordables because the developer didn't follow that phasing so you know i i think that this board has a responsibility to the town to do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen yeah but this is a 40b explain to me what's wrong with language that's this is a 40b and it can't you can't lose affordables it has to be 25 yes you can and we did

Was that a 40B?

Absolutely.

It was. It wasn't a...

It was a 40B. Just stop. It happened. Dan can...

I wouldn't think that was possible. Yeah. Basically, they left the affordables to the end.

They left the affordables to the end and walked. So what I'm concerned about is you guys building three buildings, saying we'll get all the affordables in the last one, and then leave.

But you can't do that per state regulation.

If you don't build it, then there's nothing wrong with the language we're talking about here.

Yeah, no, I'm just confused, yeah.

Yeah, I'm just wondering how that happened. It was ownership, that's different, because it was ownership.

So rental, it doesn't really, that makes sense. That makes sense if it was ownership. That's totally different.

I'm going to get back to what I said. What is wrong with the language that's there? Jason, you should look at the screen.

Oh, pardon me. So I guess it's contextual. What do you mean at a rate of three to one? In what context? Three to one as a whole or three to one building by building? Either.

As a whole is what we kind of just talked about because of the rounding issues.

It doesn't say building by building. It just says overall. So that gives you that flexibility.

Well, I guess I don't see how that gets you to eliminate your concern or what has happened apparently in town where the affordables didn't get filled.

Well, if, and I'm sure you wouldn't do this, but if you said, well, this first building is going to be all market rate and we're going to do a bunch of affordables in this building over here.

Yeah, you can't do that.

I don't mean to interrupt you. Just make sure you can't do it.

Well, but you already have language, don't you, that says we're going to be interspersed within all the buildings?

Yeah, but it doesn't say how many.

No, as a matter of fact, Colin just got up and said we can't really break it down by townhouse versus a park.

I think this accomplishes what we need to do. And I think it gives the developer a lot of flexibility.

In fact, well, and the way the process works is when you do a regulatory agreement, even if it's whatever, it's project by project, building by building. The 40B statute says you cannot receive a certificate of occupancy until your final approval is had. So the final approval will. Building permit. Right. No, that's the CFO. You get a building permit. You can start the building. You can't get CFO until your final regulatory agreement is approved. it's actually building yeah it's building yeah is it a building permit yes well either way so you can't get building parts approved so that regulatory agreement before you even get a building permit is going to make you can't have a building with not 25 percent affordables in it in a rental project each building you build is going to have to have that already implied through the regulatory agreement we understand that yeah that's the state's requirement and we want to have our own local requirement yeah it's not inconsistent with the state requirements

It's fine. My only trepidation would be if EOHLC has something to say about it when we go through the final approval, which is going to be sooner than later anyways.

We'll talk about it when they've opined on it.

That's fine.

Okay. Good catch.

Well, I just you know, I'm a little I'm a little scared because I've never heard of a circumstance as you've indicated Which happened to Grafton happen anywhere?

Anything else so This is still public hearing anyone in the audience want to say anything I or against. Anyone online?

Hold on, I've got to expand my screen.

We do have somebody coming up.

Mark Potter, 14 Suzanne Terrace. So I'm going to start off with we had a donation to the town of Grafton. Where's that going? How's that money being spent or is that something you guys don't?

So the donation hasn't happened yet and that's a question for the select board. Okay.

We have no control over that. Okay. There were some other comments made earlier about or previous meetings about Maybe our neighbors or our abutters were going to be dumping stuff on their land, landscape sort of stuff. It's all trivial, but I mentioned it probably a year ago at this point about a fence along the property line just to make something clear cut and defined. I'd be interested in hearing about that.

Do you have property of butts to the project?

No, it doesn't. And no one's ever talked to me about it because I'm probably 25 feet across the street. So I apparently don't matter.

Well, so you do matter. Um, but if we're talking about a fence in particular, that would be if your property line, you know, at a common property line and they have talked to some of the abutters who do and they're getting fences or berms or, you know, trees or what have you. So they, they have been working and, uh, I just wanted to make sure that.

Yeah. But when you're putting it like in a parking lot and an asphalt, you know, the wind blows primarily Southwest. I'm on the north side of the property. Someone spills a grocery bag in their parking lot, where is it going to go? It's going to end up in my neighborhood.

Okay.

I'm just trying to prevent that. I mean, that's just something that...

I'm confused. I'm not sure what you're asking for.

I mean, it's also a privacy thing. It's a trespassing thing or whatever you want to call it. But, I mean, putting up arborvitaes doesn't necessarily mean that that's going to solve all the privacy issues between our neighborhood and theirs. You know, when this project was originally presented, I remember Peter saying, like, oh, you guys have maximized amount of, like, what you wanted, and now we've whittled them down to what this is now. But it's still... denser than probably most of my community would like. So nothing's been really done other than like, what, there's four houses there and those are the immediate abutters and they've got their arborvitaes or their fences or whatever. But the rest of us, which there's, you said 450 excise tax vehicles in the neighborhood. What about the rest of us?

What would you suggest?

Increased privacy. A fence.

A fence around the whole project? Yeah.

Why not?

Okay.

Um, you know, we obviously, we, we originally, when this project kicked off, it was talked about like, oh, we'd have a sidewalk up to Christmas tree lane because that actually makes sense for the whole neighborhood to go to CVS and go to stop and shop or go down to wherever down there. And now that's, no, we're going to have to walk down the street, cross the street, go down by the senior home and then cross the street again it's a little ridiculous even if d.o.t says that oh we're going to change that intersection it's still absurd no one's going to do it and then you're going to change the grade on the street down to that intersection to accommodate that and it's there's no commercial motor vehicle restriction on snow road So that means you could drive a 90,000 ton or pound tractor trailer down Snow Roan to E Street with no restrictions. And you're gonna increase the grade down to that slope exiting onto 122, 140. Doesn't make sense. And I mentioned it before in previous meetings. UPS is installing a hub at basically the end Institute road. That's going to have a thousand full-time employees within the next year. You don't think that they're going to come off the 90 and cut through on snow road. cut down East Street like we're not gonna have increased traffic down there I think that's gonna be a problem that we're not factoring in here especially when it comes to commercial vehicles some of the other things that you know we had a good joke about the turtles during one of the meetings but know we've got some concerns about the vernal pool and whatever else is existing out there i don't know i just i said from the get-go it's his property i understand he's going to develop it and i'm not saying he can't develop it it's his property but i think it should meet our requirements for the town It's zoned residential. If I wanted to build a three-story property on my house, I think I'd have a lot more pushback, right? Unless it was gonna be 40B or low income, or I was gonna put a parking garage in my garage. It seems odd to me that I would get a lot of pushback for that unless I was going through some sort of state protocol. But it doesn't seem to me like it's not part of the community. The dog park, the dog poop rule, the playground and all that other stuff, it's not going to be part of our community, realistically. I would be happy to incorporate something that would be part of our community, but I just don't feel that that is what we have been presented with here. And that's my opinion. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else care to speak? Anyone online, Katrina? No. Okay.

We did have some correspondence. I think everyone's got that in their packet.

Yeah. And then there was also correspondence that's actually not in the packet. I think I got it. Was there a butter that wanted to speak? Did you?

I did.

Tell us about it.

Yeah, so I went over there, got some plans, some tape measures. We went over there, basically laid out where the basin would be, where the crests, how it would all lay out, you know, as best we could in the field. Gave a general idea of where the corner of building two would be and showed the plan how it is now where it says saving as many trees as we possibly can. We looked at some trees that we could probably save those. Not sure about this one, not sure about that one. and that we would do the infill plan we'd reach back out when once we were clear and we were deciding what the infill would be and you know within reason we'd accommodate and you guys would approve that plan as is in decision and we left at that it was a good meeting thank you all right so at this point I think we want to continue right so I think you want to go through at this point I think we have a decision yeah right so I

You want to now go through it probably closely, fine-tooth comb, so to speak, and then we can get back together. More than likely close the hearing at our next meeting. And potentially, you know, if there's no significant changes, potentially even vote.

Vote the decision.

You know, at that time. That would be nice. So I think that's where we're at. How much time do you want?

understand we got a lot of time huh I do not need a lot of time so whenever you're available for your next meeting if you want to fold it into the next we don't we don't have the next meeting right no we've got nothing scheduled it's crazy I know it went from what I was going to recommend if you wanted to fold it into your next regularly scheduled agenda. You don't even have it.

No, we don't. We meet as needed.

Oh, really?

But lately it's been a lot.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Could we ask Attorney Hill, one would be reasonable to expect a clean, complete,

Decision, I think my plan after tonight is to email this to bill bill volunteer to fix my table Jeff I'd like you to look at the language I added on that fence area. Okay, just yep Understood your terminology might be better than mine. Okay, so I think let them do that work I don't think I have any more edits to make it's I And I'm going to be gone starting on July 7th, so if there's any way to get this meeting done before then. I will be too.

Yeah, and I think I've got an Australia trip coming up, so.

Before the 7th?

No. But shortly thereafter.

Oh, okay. Potentially.

When are you back, Dean?

I'm back on the 13th, but then we have that Southborough trial that. Yes. Not participating in. No.

How about July 2nd? I hate to do it before the long weekend and all, but.

I was planning on. I'm not going to be here.

I'm not going to be here either.

Long weekend.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not either, but.

What about Wednesday?

Yeah, what about July 1st?

I can't do it.

get it to see the career one of you in Australia Tuesday what the 30th yeah Tuesday the 30th I'm fine what we won't get this room let me double-check I don't think so

Well, the selectmen don't meet on usually the fourth Tuesday.

Let me just double check. That's like the fifth Tuesday.

I mean, the third, yeah.

Oh, shoot. I can't do Tuesday either.

What about the sixth?

um i won't be here alex you you were him and i know i was him and holler in the 30th but i just really i just realized i i said that's a definite no not even a remote yeah no 16th i mean the 16th works for me um i'm fine i i'm not

I'm away. I'm sorry, did I say I was back on the 12th? I'm back on the 19th. So I'm gone.

August? Going back to June 29th, did we rule that out? Monday?

I can do June 29th. Yeah, I can.

That's next Monday. We'll...

to lawyers be ready by Monday?

I mean, there's nothing on my end. It's just accepting red lines. So it's really, unless you have...

I mean, that gives you Friday and Monday. No, Saturday and Sunday.

I charge them double time, so don't worry. I mean, what's your availability over the next couple of days? We have to hop on a call. Katrina, could you double check for planning board?

The only thing that's showing right now is Board of Health, so let me just double check again.

Planning board is usually second and fourth, so this is the fifth.

I want to go through this with you guys.

Can we do it upstairs, Katrina?

I'm looking. Hold on.

You know what? If everyone can do the 29th, we'll find a place.

I mean, the Board of Health has a meeting, but I can bump them wherever I need to bump them. And I think their stuff is usually remote anyway. I can double check with Nancy tomorrow, but I don't see anyone in A.

Do we have enough time to advertise it?

No, we don't have to advertise it.

Every meeting has to be a 48-hour rule.

48 hours.

No.

Good point. So you got it.

No.

You put it. Post it tomorrow.

It's Friday. No.

No.

No. It would have had to have been posted today.

Today. You're right. Sorry.

We were locked in.

All right, so the 30th is out. The first was out, right? Somebody was no good on the first?

I'm fine on the first. I can't do the first. The second.

Dan's no good on the first. Second's out.

Dan's out to the 19th, so it's going to have to be the 20th. Or we get the 20th.

Wait a minute. The 6th. Dan was leaving on the 7th.

If you guys meet during the day, I could do it. I'm going to be in Europe, so I can't do a 7 o'clock meeting, but I could do it.

Why not? He wasn't with me. Oh, no.

And mind you, I had to get on a plane.

That's why we had had the hard stop.

I have to tell you, I had a meeting that you were at while I was in Greece, and that was painful. Was it 7 or 8 hours difference? 7, and I had to start the meeting at 2 in the morning, and it ended at 5 in the morning.

What about the 6th?

Monday the 6th? Monday the 6th. I'm traveling on the 6th, but I might be at my destination by 7 o'clock.