Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'll uh call this meeting of the Grafton Planning Board on Monday, March 23rd, 2026 to order. All of us are here in the room, so we don't need a roll call. Anybody out there on Zoom, use your put your hand up, I guess, if you have input when it's appropriate. So, this brings us to public input. This is when if someone has something to talk to us about that is within our purview and not otherwise on tonight's agenda. Um this is your chance to talk to us. Hands. Any hands? Any hands? Any hands? No hands.

No hands on Zoom. Oh,

good evening. Can you hear me? Um, it would help me if you spoke up louder. And we need name and address. Can you hear me first? Yes. Yes. Okay. Uh, my name is Vivec Hegde. I live on uh 10 Odrina Lane on Woodland Hills. Uh, the new development off of Institute Road. Uh, this uh the item that I was going to talk today is not in the in the agenda today, but I thought I could ask few questions today if possible. We are in touch with the planning department um uh that way. And we do have a few questions on uh 124 Westboroough Road project.

We're one 124 124 West the new buildings. Yeah, that's what we we just split the lots on that. That's the one we just split the lots on with an ANR Yeah. meeting or two ago. Common driveway. Yeah, the common driveway. Y um can I ask now briefly?

Okay, thank you. Uh uh first of all, thanks for the opportunity. Uh appreciate the help here. Um I am a new resident and I'm joined by two other gentlemen here, my neighbors. Um I live in Woodland Hills. Uh I moved in uh in October 2023, uh just over two years. And it brought to our attention after we moved in that this is a new development coming up uh right next door. Um we are about 47 single family homes and about 100 condo unit right next to it. I'm sure some of you are familiar with that. Um we do have few specific concerns about this project. Um, reason that I'm here, one of the reason I'm here, uh, I represent the, uh, HOA. Uh, I'm the president of the HOA for Woodland Hills. Uh, again, my name is Vivec Hegde, 10 Audrina Lane. Uh, specific concerns are I know we do have this um, special permit has been granted to this developer. Um but I personally I'm speaking for my um my uh my homeowner tenants there. 47 of them I'm representing is that this permit was issued before any one of these 150 units mowed in. Um, PY was a builder and PY had already started building this this neighborhood and the permit was issued back in early 2024. Um, if I'm correct, um, uh, we feel that there are about 500 people live in this neighborhood. um about 300 plus adults and about 200 children live in this neighborhood with two entities together

100 units of condos and 47 units of single family homes. Uh we feel that we have not been given an opportunity to um ask questions um even appeal opportunity to appeal before this project got started. Um and uh I personally uh with my neighbors came and met with the building commissioner back in 2025 in this regard. Uh her name is Tracy. Uh she was very cordial. She was uh extremely cooperative in discussing this this project and we did bring up a couple of issues during that meeting. Um and I I if I remember um she mentioned that I think the proper setup to come and ask these questions is meeting like this. and and I I I think this is the first opportunity now I'm here to ask those questions. Um I did reach out to builder uh seeking for a meeting and no one has returned my call. Um Goodman I think his name last name. I'm not so sure if he's here.

Goodman. Um and uh Steve Goodman.

Steve Goodman. And the numbers and contact informations were given to us by the town. Um and uh the specific concerns that we have is basically two to three items. Um one I I just laid out that we have been not being given an opportunity to discuss this project. It's not a small number of people. It's a good 500 people community there and um personally I felt that you know people should be heard and then the closest house there are two uh single family homes closest to this property line is within 200 yards 39 Institute Road and 41 Institute Road and number two Ordina Lane um uh I think building number B there are 200,000 square ft footprint buildings are coming up there. One of them being building number B is very close to these houses. Um, you know, concerns are noise studies. What would be it look like in the evening hours in summertime when those rooftop units are cranking up? Um, and uh what happens to the close by homes and and also we want to know if there is a buffer zone between Institute Road and this development. you know is the trees are going to be leveled or is there some line of trees going to be left over just to have a buffer on the institute road I think the frontage of institute road is about 1,200 l meter or feet one of those two uh very close in my opinion um the safety um you know buffer zone noise studies are our main concern uh and and I I do understand there is an ax access road being built off of Institute Road to this this new property uh for passenger vehicles and emergency vehicles only. Um we're happy to hear that there is no

major trucks are being driven on those roads. Uh I was reading the special permit conditions this morning and that was a little bit satisfactory information there for us but uh we we are asking uh why there was no thought process given um allowing the passenger vehicles having an access uh uh on the institute road end of it. Why can't why there was no discussion on making both access from the Westboroough roadside? Um you know we're we're happy that trucks are not coming major trucks are not coming but at the same time we do have the safety concerns. Um I'm happy to ask answer questions if you guys have anything on that front. Mr. Jim, can I

please please? So, this project that the 200,000 foot buildings were approved prior to any of those houses being built there. Correct. It's zoned properly. It went through the all of the all of the special permit process. It went through the um uh all of the anybody who had a question or anything like that at that time. Keep in mind your development wasn't built. So there's really nothing I mean you can you know appreciate you coming here but there's really nothing that the board can do

because the board has already approved the special permit and the location and the and the access and the traffic study and the entire the entire thing. So there's really not a lot you know that this board can do in in you know unfortunately that piece of property which was which where you live that's been in subdivision for 10 years probably 10 years. It took I think it took 10 years for that to to get but the planning for that subdivision was in the in on the order of 10 years. Yeah 10 years. So, so it took 10 years for that to get processed

and then and then um this piece of property which the state used to own and then it was purchased uh by Mr. Goodman and um and that went through the exact same process. Didn't take 10 years but it went through the exact same process. So there's really I hate to say it but there's really nothing that you can do. Um there's nothing that that can be changed on the site. there's nothing that that's going to be, you know, altered or anything like that. So, you know, it it's kind of like Mhm.

you know, it's kind of like sorry, you know, uh you know, the developer the developer that built it, PY um you know, didn't didn't respond to any any of the uh any of the stuff. I guess I guess I appreciate your response. Um I guess the I know it's it's after the fact uh the concern that I have uh from my homeowners neighbor stand standpoint was there any thought process in waiting for this 500 more population moving in giving them an opportunity to raise those right questions before you approve those processes. How can you do that? So yeah,

you have to sell the houses to get the residents, you have to have the subdivision approved, right? To do that. Um,

and in as Mr. Me said, in this case, your subdivision took roughly 10 years to be ready. Like they can get the approvals and everything they need, then they can sit on it in theory until they decide they have enough money and they're going to make enough money by building them and selling them. or they can come back and say we want to do something different. They could both the homes could have done that as well. But so for us to say to someone else who is legally going through the process of trying to get something else that they own built, well, you need to wait till some unspecified time in the future that you if it was the other way around, you you wouldn't want to have to wait till this was built to buy your home. I'm sure.

Right. That's probably why PY never mentioned that to us when we were buying those houses. There were no ask them. Um, yeah. I mean, yeah, I would I would not speculate on their reasons for I I would I would mention though in my recollection of our our our review process for the uh commercial development is that

everybody involved in it was aware of the existence of the subdivision plans and some elements of that project were designed specifically to take that into consideration. For example, the entrance off institute road, the fact that it's restricted to passenger wheels that was taking in that was done take into consideration the exist existence of the subdivision. And although I I don't want to take the time now to look up the plans to my recollection in between Institute Road and the developed part of that property, there is a substantial amount of woods that was to be left intact.

Okay. In terms of in terms of your buffer zone question, I think I think that although no one lived at Woodland Hill yet at the time the subdivision plans were in place, this commercial development plan, this was designed with the knowledge that there was a subdivision. And so to the extent the extent practical during the design of the commercial project, right,

considerations of the housing development were taken into account. Yeah. Okay. I thanks for the you know response there. Um I think going forward we do have a couple concerns. Uh I think I mentioned that early on. One is obviously there was no noise study has been done. Um this was brought to our attention by um Fiona. Um uh I'm not an expert on this field but we did discuss those questions. Um question is what is the process for it? Is it something that noise study normally is done before these kind of approval happens or you did the traffic study. Uh we appreciate that

traffic. Traffic traffic that's required in the bylaw. Yeah. For for grafting there was no noise thing on the on the books for a requirement. It's not a requirement. It falls back on state law which is roughly there's some specific number that it can raise above ambient level at the property line. I forget the details on that but but that's state level. Okay. Yeah. Would this be conducted during construction at all as that's part of one of those conditions right there that the builder has to meet those requirements the state requirements uh the environmental noise study requirements.

We don't need to require that. that the state requires it. You complain to the state if uh there's a problem. Well, do we have do we have a construction noise though? It is in the conditions construction. It's in one of those conditions of the construction. Uh it is listed that they have to meet those requirements. Yeah. Okay. Well, they do anyway if it's state. Well, but just for clarity for these folks because you know again we can't we can't really go back. So forward looking, right? what do they have to reference in ter in terms of making a complaint if they feel it's too loud. So I think that's what has to happen is if you feel it's too loud then you would have to come into who in the town to

report that zoning portion officer which is Tracy that he's obvious. So you go to Tracy Tracy. Okay. And then in the bylaw for the construction noise it says excess of 100 dBA measured at the point of the boundary of the property. Right. So yeah if you felt it was too loud then you could talk to Tracy and then I I think she would know the process to go and and sort of test that out.

Yeah. If I can take this opportunity to say a couple of things here. if you guys don't mind. Um is that is one uh obviously we will communicate with Tracy on that. Uh then during construction I'm hoping there is no major heavy equipment vehicles are not accessing this property through this new access being built. I'm not so sure when when that passenger vehicle access is being built because the reason I mentioned there are little children that they go to bus stops right there in the morning 7 7:30 there you can expect about 20 to 30 kids

waiting for the buses there um something new for them um I don't know what is the timeline for those access road being built we do see the access road right now off off of 30 uh I mean Westboroough road 124 for Westboro Road. It's a construction access they have. I've seen some bigger vehicles going there. Um that is another concern we have. Hopefully that's something that town can keep an eye on making sure that um the

there's a good chance been a long time since they've actually looked at the plan, but typically the plans for a project will include information about construction traffic, where construction traffic is allowed to go and where it's not. And so to the extent that any that construction traffic was taken into account that is most likely to be found somewhere on the plans. Yeah. Possibly in the permit but if if it's not written explicitly in the permit the the plans generally address various aspects of you know construction activities.

Okay. And I I without looking at it, I' I would guess that it's likely that all of the construction traffic is expected to be from Route 30. Okay, that's that's very important. Thank you. I don't have any more questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks for having some public input. We don't get much. Although I wish it was we could help more but No, we appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. All right. Um Stillwater Estates triparty agreement.

Can we leave? Yep. Yes, you can. I mean, you're welcome to stay if you want, but you're not required to. We don't want to bore you guys. Do we Okay, so Tony Riley from council's office is Hi. Good evening everybody. Can you all hear me? Okay. Yes. Yes.

All right. Great. Um so thanks for having me on the agenda. Um I just wanted to give you a quick update about um Still Water and then uh I think the board has some things to discuss. So, just about two weeks ago, um, an attorney reached out to me who represents Mutual One Bank. Um, that's the bank that's holding the $143,000 bond amount. Um, and this was our first response uh from Mutual One um in about 2 years uh since uh my office sent them a letter telling them you know you're holding this bond amount and you know please don't discharge it in any way. Um and then that was resulting from the developer uh declaring bankruptcy and Mutual One was a party to the bankruptcy case. Um so nothing's really happened in two years until this attorney contacted me and uh this this law firm is uh newly representing Mutual One. So they weren't really exactly sure what was going on. So, you know, he called to ask me and um when I talked to him on the phone, I didn't know. So, I asked to be put on the agenda to um you know, see if the board had an appetite to take some action, to take no action. Um there's an old estimate uh that shows that about 43, sorry, 42,000 dollars left of work um you know, would be needed. This is a couple years old though from Graves Engineering. It's from 2023. So I'm assuming, you know, that cost might go up a little bit. Um even though there was an inflation contingency built into that estimate. Um

and like I said, Mutual One is holding $143,000. Um, so and and I'm not sure of the the specifics exactly, uh, quite honestly, but at least what Fiona reported to me before she departed was that there's, you know, some ongoing issues with storm water management and potential flooding in the neighborhood and, you know, the road's not done. Um, and the board has some money available to it if the board wanted to, you know, undertake trying to complete the road. So, I don't have an opinion on that one way or another, but I just thought I'd bring this to the board's attention because I was contacted and then um you know, we could talk about what your options are and what you might like to do.

It's been a while since we've had one of these. Bob, you probably remember it better than I do because I think that that particular case that I'm remembering started before I was on the board. Rose Lane. Rose Lane and thereabouts. Yeah. Yep. Off. I don't remember exactly. I think that the planner well the planner was the interface as far as we were concerned to the process of completion. Um behind him I don't know um how how it was managed and right now we're between planners to that.

Right. And I'm I'll bet you Natalie would rather not build a road for you. Um in her spare time, I learned or I learned that Fiona was leaving when when I spoke to her about being contacted uh by Mutual One Bank. So, um yeah, it's probably and we thought it was a good idea to discuss this, but I do understand that it's kind of difficult when

you're you're in between planners. Yeah, it might it might take a while, but it's probably fair to say that the board would like to see the subdivision roads and and utilities completed to our usual specifications. However, however, the logistics of that have to be managed. It's the details that were that I would worry about. But, you know, I I assume that the board I'm speaking for myself, but I'm guessing the other board members probably would think it's a good idea to to actually have all that work completed. I agree. If I live there, I would like to see it all completed. So, I think we should do that.

Especially if the money's available and and sounds like it is. So, then that makes a lot of sense to me as well. Yeah. And in my conversation with Mutual One's council, you know, there was no, it was a friendly conversation. There's no dispute. You know, there's no claim that we're not entitled to it. He would just, you know, newly hired and trying to uh figure out the status and at least acknowledge me over the phone that, you know, they understand that's why they're holding the money and, you know, when whenever the board makes a decision, it should be available. As I recall in the previous case, or maybe there were two cases, um there may not have been enough money. Uh Rose Lane, I think there was a issue about not having enough money for whatever reason.

Yeah, that kind of sticks in my memory. That may have helped us modify our requirement for bonds. As a matter of fact, um uh yeah, um we asked for the bond for a bond so that we could be sure it got built and it needs to get built properly. Yeah, it seems to me we wanted to move forward. I would propose I don't know if we need a vote officially, but I propose that we have staff coordinate with town council as well as possibly town administrator's office to find out what the

what the processes for how we go about this. Do we need to do a Graves a Graves assessment ahead of time or do we need to do an R RFP? What do we need to do to to find a completeness of this road with

Well, I think first step would um would if for Graves to provide an updated estimate. Um certainly the prices have changed, you know, going up and, you know, some things might be different if portions of the area have deteriorated further from three years ago from when the last estimate was given. Um and then once we get an estimate then uh you know we can determine whether we need an RFP. Yeah. And you know the next steps after that. So but I think the first step is an updated I'm not sure estimate of all the work.

I'm not sure whether that drainage um thing was ever sat resolved to everyone's satisfaction. There was disagreement about it but that would be part of this equation. It sounds like there should be enough money to do what needs to be done or certainly uh there's no indication that we have to shy off because of the money. Um I would think it's on the agenda. I would think we could have a a vote to say that we'd like to start a process to uh see about completion. Sure. Do you have a question?

And one and there's one timing um one timing thing that the board should be aware of is that uh Mutual One's council um like I mentioned before the de you know the the the developer was in bankruptcy. Mutual one was a party to that bankruptcy. Um and and actually we appeared in the bankruptcy uh briefly to get an order from the bankruptcy judge to say that um the funds that are set aside for us um are not going to be wrapped up in the bankruptcy and that we can use them despite the bankruptcy case still pending. So we got that order, so we're allowed to do that. Um, and for reasons that I have yet to understand, uh, it it appears that Mutual One thinks they need some further relief from the bankruptcy court, um, to either release these funds or clarify something. Um, I'm not exactly sure why, but, I can follow up with their council this week. Um, and so that's just kind of a timing thing that they might need to file a motion with the bankruptcy court and have the bankruptcy judge rule on it. Um, but I think it's in our favor because it's only helping them release the the money and it shouldn't take too much time. The bankruptcy court is usually pretty good about moving things along quickly. So, it's not something that would, you know, sit in the court for 10 months and everyone would forget about it. So, um, just be aware of that. There's not much for us to do on that uh point, but the bank thinks they need some kind of order from the bankruptcy court judge to release the money.

Well, would you like us to take that vote and would it be sufficient? I will. Yeah, that would encompass I think that would encompass the general um idea of getting the process started. Yes. I just have one question. Um we do not have any peerreview funds left. In fact, we have an unpaid bill. So, in order to contact Graves, if you know after the vote um for an estimate to be able to provide the construction cost, would we have funds? I think we're just saying we want to We want it to move forward. Where the money is, how you get it, all of that is going to be okay.

Yeah. you I I I would move that the board authorize uh staff including the assistant planner uh coordinating with council with DPW with the town's procurement officer uh to move this process forward with the expectation that at some point we will be able to get an updated completion estimate from Graves but you know that may involve I mean the details tells the logistics it will leave up to um staff. Second that included uh anyone else like I said. Yes.

Does everyone agree with Does everyone agree that we know what the motion? Yes. That we're voting on. Does anyone have any discussion or questions? If not, all in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Go for it. All right. Thank you. I'll ask to be put on a future meeting when we have some more details for you. Right. And oh, and u

no more minutes. We are coming. We we want to talk about um Oh, the other thing we're going to talk about was that the solar field? Yes. Yes, that's Yeah, you you uh your office had given us um some input. I'll I'll start the u Come on. Come on.

Okay. Uh we it's it's just exactly the right time to reopen the special permit hearing SP2026-01 SPA and site plan approval at 244 Worcester Street. Um, we had hoped to have a decision put together for you, but our planner left and we've we still have the outstanding question. Send them an email um saying that it would not be ready for this meeting.

Yeah. um which which is a concern for you folks but for me and us too. Um I' I'd like to I hope we can have communication with a town administrator about um the ongoing process of a planner and uh covering these bases and um I'd like to see even the uh the job requirements that he's advertising just I mean as chairman I should you know somebody should at least be looking at it. So you want me to ask? So if you can Yes please. So um we don't have a complete um permit um draft yet.

Okay. Um if you look through our drafts you can understand why. Um they used to be when I started they used to be you know like a page or two.

Yeah. But then something happened and we had to add some stuff and then something happened and we had to add things and then something happened and we had um and each each planner is embellished um and Fiona was very thorough. So okay te tell us what you want to tell us tonight. Okay. So, um just a few different things. Number one, just to confirm, everything with graves has been addressed and taken care of. No, nothing outstanding at this point is my understanding. I just want to make sure that was correct in everybody's eyes.

That is correct. Yeah, there was one item that we addressed in this last uh Oh, you should say who you are. I'm sorry. Adam Hartman uh with Wyman Gordon and Nick Fasendola level design group. You see they record these meetings and now they're starting to use AI to produce minutes. I mean what I meant to say is Ronnie Brooks with Wyman Gordon. No, but yeah, for the record um we sent the updated plans to Graves and they followed up with a a final final letter. So that's all set. I don't believe there was anything else.

So, uh, yeah, we do have all the required documentation and the final um, report from Graves. We also, just for the record, did receive a public comment from um, Shannon Felin regarding the seed mix to be used and I did mention that to you that that came in. Um, I'm not sure if anything needs to be changed or not because of that. I think the latest memo I saw from you had responded. Yeah, the latest plant set does have a different type of seed mix. It's more local uh native seed mix and um the project was approved by conservation for storm water permit and for an order conditions uh this past Tuesday

and as part of that one of their special conditions was that um we submit the seed mix prior to installing it so it can be verified. So, we're going to have uh triple uh redundancies on the native seed mix. So, I believe that should cover that comment. Correct. I guess I guess the the one question was about there was a question about the bond situation and uh maybe have you seen the letter that we got from Yeah.

council? Yeah. And spent a fair amount of time with it. Um, I'll I'll be honest when I say I tend to read things the way I want to. So, uh, feel free to uh uh absolutely correct me on that. I kind of took it as um the the feedback from the outside council was, you know, the theou uh that we proposed maybe didn't take the place of the bond. However, the last paragraph, and this is where I tend to I mean, Nick's probably thrown stuff at the wall of how I read stuff, but um I thought kind of left the door open of is this something that's even applicable given the situation. So, I kind of reflected on it a little bit and just sort of wanted to mention a few things and and and see what everybody's thoughts were. One thing that I felt like I didn't do a great job of communicating last time we were here was um you know we were going to propose that theou was obviously notorized and then recorded with the property. So even if someday we were to sell that off um it would still transition with the property that obligation uh to decommission. And you know, when when I think about the decommissioning bonds and and things like that, um you know, I wish we would have done a little bit better job of explaining to outside council just sort of the structure, right? And that kind of brings me to, you know, we've been at the plant since the 40s. Um you know, we've owned it since the 80s. Um we're not shielding this project in like an LLC where we could pull the plug and walk away. This is truly owned by Wyman and Gordon. It's not Wyman and Gordon Solar One or something like that where, you know, I'm sure you guys have seen those come across your desk where it's like, you know, uh, Pacific Solar 1, 2, 3, and four. It's like, that's 80 acres. I don't understand why you're, you know, four different phases. This is all part

of, uh, the plan itself. We intend to own and operate it. Um, you know, we're a part of PCC, Precision Cast Parts, uh, which is a part of Birkshshire Hathaway. um some of the nation's largest presses are housed there. Um you know, been in the community for a long time. Uh really not going anywhere. In fact, it's the other direction of how can we do more? And that's really what brought this up. Um and one of the comments that was here last time was what precedence would this set? And number one is a really good question and I wish I wrote down who asked it, but I didn't do that fast enough. But um you know I kind of thought about that a little bit and sort of reflected on it and I don't know that I've ever seen um you know a company as tried and true as Wyman Gordon that's that's that's been here as long as we have and then to me has been further strengthened by you know being acquired by Precision Cast Parts which was acquired by um you know Birkshshire Hathaway. Obviously, you can never say never, but um this is a very very strong company within Birkshshire Hathaway. I mean, you can Google it and see the the the financials and so forth for it. So, um you I just kind of wanted to point that out. And then there was another question that was asked last time and I wasn't thinking fast enough on my feet, but it was, you know, the energy that's produced here, you know, give me some kind of equivalent as to what that would um kind of balance out per house or, you know, that sort of thing. So, an average house consumes approximately 10,500 kilwatt hours of power a year. And the first thing I did was looked at my power bill and uh I'm on the high side of that, but uh that's what the average says. Grafton Solar is going to produce, and this is a very um conservative number, approximately 5 million kilowatt hours

annually. So if you break that down, you're right around 400, I'll say conservatively 475 homes. Uh so what that would produce would offset, you know, that amount of energy, which when you think about it, you think about stress on the grid. And and I want to be very careful when I say that like we're not saying national grid has problems on the grid. I'm just saying like, you know, stress to the electrical grid in general. um it's making a pretty big impact uh especially during those peak times. Now if it's hot out and cloudy out and it's not producing obviously it's not but you know during days when when uh the plant is producing even you know half of that it's still going to make a heck of an impact. Do we have any more input from council relative to this?

Hi. Um, Mr. Chair, so I wasn't aware of this hearing and the letter you received from my office was not written by me. So, I don't um I I don't have anything to add and uh I wasn't asked to prepare to talk about this at all. So, I apologize that I can't be more helpful, but um I don't know who wrote the letter, but I I've never looked at it. Christopher Heap.

Yeah, that was Christopher Chris. Okay. and and and I want to clarify one thing like like the things that he said very much in my opinion would apply to your typical solar developer, you know, that that is at a holding company level, has different LLC's for every solar farm and is not local, is not in the community and that sort of thing. But that's where I really feel like we're different. Yeah. everything in in general. We want some assurance that when it comes time to decommission that solar array that it will be possible to have the decommissioning completed

and and to me respectfully recording anou against the property that transfers with the property.

Yeah. And you know, in a case like this, we have an owner who is clearly solvent, has been around a long time, and have every reason to believe will continue to be around for a long time. If it should ever come to pass that the property is sold, maybe repurposed for something, the solar array goes along with that. Um and and even even assuming taking a very long view you know the lifetime of a t of the solar array comp components might be 25 or 30 years but assuming that the solar array still remains useful then it will be upgraded over time. So it it's got a potentially very long lifetime. And the the potential risk that we have to think about is suppose there comes a time when Wyman and Gordon or its successors for reasons unanticipated now suddenly vanishes. you know, the property the the property is the entire property is likely to be abandoned at that point, including the solar array. But until that until such an event occurs, we can probably be confident that the owner of the solar array, if if I ever choose to decommission it, will be in a position to be able to do that.

Sure. So, it's it's that what if. Yeah. that we have to keep in mind that we we somehow have to either accept the risk or find a way to mitigate the risk in what may be a very unlikely event. But you know ultimately we need to we need to make a conscious decision about what we do with respect to that risk however unlikely we may think it is. And typically as you know as as we all know typically we ensure that decommissioning can take place by accepting some form of shity

and there are several possibilities there but some some form of shity. Um in the case of a company with the clearly with the financial strengths to undertake that decommissioning um for as long as that strength exists you don't really need to as a practical matter you don't really need to worry about it too much but sure I do I I I I do suspect that somehow we would like to satisfy ourselves that in that unlikely event that things will be covered and I don't know the best way to do that.

Yeah. G given particular co council's note that solar decommissioning bonds can be difficult to obtain and given some of the uncertainties and so on so forth but anou particularly if it's sort of you know it's pretty as as strong as anou can be um probably covers a lot of territory not quite with the strength of assurityity he would that I'm sure he would but and I I don't know what the best answer for that is for us on the board.

So So my start off that last paragraph that you called out that you believe it is the board's choice that is the same way I read it and I was hoping I would be able to get clear.

Did you speak up earlier? No, I'm kidding. But yeah, it it is my belief that it is based on that one paragraph, but I could be misreading it as well. But the I I do feel in this case theou as you described it is enough confidence for me to move forward. But I want to understand from our town council's point of view, would we still be required to have an actual bond for some solar company one as you just you described it in the future where we don't have that same level of of comprehension that it would still be decommissioned properly and because if we do issue thisou I don't want to be in the precedent setting of well we can have a random LLC have an MOU in there fine too because that that could be a little bit of an issue for the town.

Yeah. Um yeah. No, I I I definitely hear what you're saying from that perspective. Um yeah, and again I tend to read things the way I I I I want to. Um, I kind of felt like that's what he was sort of saying there is that this is a little bit different than what your normal, you know, solar phase one would be versus, you know what I'm saying? Um, let me ask this question, and this is, um, well, I'll just ask it. Um, would it give the board more confidence if we said something to the effect of in the event that we did sell that ground that we would post a bond?

In the event what? In the event that we did sell that ground, in the event that Wyman Gordon no longer owned it, that we would post a bond. I think that depends on how Wyman Gordon goes away. Who knows what's left. Well, um I mean Wyman Gordon's I I I'm I'm on board with with Wyman Gordon's been there a long time. Yeah. And it even has places other than Grafton.

Exactly. Exactly. And although they have closed some big places not too far from here in the past. Um definitely can't dispute that. But um and and they've been selling off property here at this location. More development, more tax dollar. Well, maybe sooner or later. Um yeah, let's not talk about that one. I'm uh I don't know. Um I mean at the end of the day comfort

I would like a sure assurance that whatever it costs 30 years from now um or whenever it is will be covered because at the rate we're going um if we name a number now Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We'll have we'll have to review the number every year. Yeah. Uh so is is there an estimate now of what the decommissioning like in dollars would cost? I mean there's uh there's some standards that are out there. No, but we don't have a we don't have a number for this specific.

I mean it's based on the name plate size. So um you know there's there's quite a few numbers that uh I think we found some in New Jersey that had been somewhat recent. Um, it was gosh, right around 100,000 I think. How many? 100,000 total for Yeah. per megawatt. How many? Per megawatt. Yeah. Yeah. And this is three megawatts. A little over three. Yeah. So, we're talking about maybe $300,000 in today's dollars. Correct. Right. So, I mean, I don't know per personally for that amount in the context of the whole property and everything like that, you know, I I don't know. No, you know what the standards are.

No. What if if the if the bond itself is as important as the commitment from the the resident, right? Because for anybody to buy that property, you know, what's $300,000 if you're buying and and renovating that property. I don't know. I'm I'm just bringing in that perspective. And that's that's one of the ones that, to be honest with you, I've struggled with a lot is is you know, uh as big as that footprint is, everything that's there. Um but but again we want you guys to have comfort. So what would be the reason that you're going to decommission the solar if you look at the history of renewable energy

um about every well about every 10 years and that's a conservative number it's been closer to five you're typically repowering stuff. There's there's you know the past has been government incentives that are there. the technologies vastly improved or um you know having power generation is extremely valuable um and and you know think of a scenario of if um if the plant ever went away and I I absolutely don't believe there's any indication that would ever happen just given what's done there and how critical it is to the aerospace industry as well as other industries as well. You would have a a solar facility with an interconnection point that's right there with some paperwork.

You would probably transfer it over. I ask the question, what would be the reason to decommission because you didn't answer it the first? I I really didn't. Kind of like a politician. No. Uh you know, so in most situations, a lot of these projects, they're they don't the company doesn't own the land. they have a 25-y year lease. So that land then reverts back on a typical site.

But but take that out of the equation. So generally um your solar module is going to degrade a little bit uh every year. It's just part of the sunlight hitting it, right? Most companies have a 20-year warranty behind their modules. Um but most of them are still going to be producing at the end of that 20 years. I mean one of them's warrantied at what was it? 91 92%. So if you take care of it, if you do inverter maintenance, invest a little bit of money and and I I believe as you look at it, it would make financial sense to you would want to keep going.

Yeah. So in fact, you wouldn't be you you might be upgrading equipment you swapping, but as long as there's value in producing Yes. the solar power, there's no decommissioning at all taking place. No, we're not. No, we wouldn't decommission and then um just walk away from it. It would make I I I can't even fathom a scenario. So, sorry for dodging that question. I was No, you don't second time. That's okay. But but the real answer is what I'm saying is most times these prop these properties are leased and that term is up and you have to remove every single Adam, hold on a second. You own the property.

You have to you have to remove all the components as part of that lease agreement. In this situation, the propertyy's owned by Wyman Gordon. It's owned in perpetuity, right?

It m for them, it makes no sense to go in and have that cost to remove every single post and reestablish vegetation through that area and reclaim it. That's typically what's required. In our situation, we probably reinvest in newer panels, upgraded equipment now that that infrastructure is already there. you know those stainless steel posts they're not going to fall apart in 20 years right so there may be some maintenance required but in an ideal situation you're rehabbing the system hopefully we have 800 watt panels right by that time in better inverters will be producing more energy in that footprint

yeah so I I'm pictur picturing a decommissioning scenario as one in which Wyman Gordon there there's no longer a need for what Wyman Gordon does so Wyman Gordon closes is a facility. Wyman and Gordon cannot find a buyer for the facility. So they basically the property is and it's you know you it's auctioned off to some somewhere and the buyer of the property ultimately sees no value in maintaining the solar array. Although given the likely continued value of solar power, it might well be that the solar array would continue in operation even if the factory is abandoned.

Yeah. Under some ownership. So worst case scenario, you would be trying to sell the power on the grid. On on the other hand, if it becomes illegal to generate solar power, we have bigger problem. Would you Mike? Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, we're really getting into a lot of hypotheticals here. I mean my question is really around if if somebody has to buy that lot. The biggest problem is not going to be the solar array on that lot. So you know I I just all that we can go through all the hypotheticals we want but how do we help them do something you know for the business? I mean I don't know I'm getting a little bit

that's why I go back to to to your comment. I mean I go back to the the line in the next to the last paragraph. So I think it is an interesting question whether a decommissioning bond should be required for a project like this one. Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly where the attorney is coming from. Their perspective is and and this is the from my perspective, you need I we need some assurance as as a as a board and a town that you're not going to walk away from this this site. I I know Wyman Garden doesn't plan on doing that. You wouldn't be doing this project of solar array if if you you had any intention of doing that.

Correct. So we I just need from my perspective that our town our outside council is comfortable with your asurances that you're putting in this memo of understanding whether it's a stamp of approval or whatever that I need to feel that that firm is is comfortable. That's my perspective. Okay. And that because his next sentence was, "It's up to the planning board to come up with whether or not we want them to get a decommissioning bond." How about if you put together this and we pass it to council um comment? We

It's already done that. We did. We Yeah, we did that. That was his response was in Oh. Oh,

yeah. So, you know, as council says, it's entirely the board's call. And it sounds like we're all pretty comfortable in saying that under the current circumstances, we really don't see a need for a decommissioning bond. Understanding that circumstances conceivably could change in the future, I don't know if it's worth trying to work something into theou that says that should Wyman Gordon cease to control this,

then the planning board at that time should be involved in a decision as to whether to accept a decommissioning bond at that time. I'm more than happy to to put that in there. I think we all I think we all understand that theou doesn't have the u the same certainty that a bond would have. Mhm. But under the circumstances specific to this project, am I correct in thinking that all of us seem to be comfortable with theou? How did we actually see theou? It's a Yes, it's in it was it was in the

it's in the when did I write that? I Well, it addressed me. I don't remember seeing it, but okay. It was the last attached at the end. If you scroll down, that's often where I don't see it. Um, about my computer. Um, my new computer is a 71 1917 uh 2017 estimates. Um, commissioning provid updated estimates. My my biggest concern is just people sue us when we don't give them permits and

the first thing they do is go look at what we did before and u what we're what we're establishing and that's what we have attorneys for. Yeah. I Yeah.

I think where my I think where I'm sitting at is basically in line with what Dave said is that yes, I do think theou is appropriate in this case. What I do have the concern about is exactly what Mr. Hassinger said, which is the next company that then says, "I don't want to give you a bond and we deny it." And then, "Well, you didn't give W and Gordon make Guam Gordon do a bond, you know, and what what happens?" So I think the question I have which I think is only our our council can answer is do they feel there is a wording they can help draft put in our decision that accurately and properly reflects the reasons we feel thisou is acceptable but it and why effectively it would not be appropriate in some other cases. So we can in in some in some way there so that we can the next, you know, LLC that comes around and says, "Hey, we leasing this land. Want to put a a solar array on it?"

There's a difference right there, Justin. They're le they're leasing the land as as opposed to why Gordon owns the land. No. That's why that's why the attorney was very specific about the the criteria as it relates to this particular project. No, I um Yes, I agree with So that's what I mean. So that that's the assurance has to come from our outside council to to this specific project and why that a memo of understanding could be utilized and then that's our determination as a board to determine if we want to commit to that.

Yeah. If if I may finish, my my point being that prior situations that we the board has been in court with in the past, it comes down to what what did the decision say? Not so much what did the discussion that led to the decision say. And you know, so having that information in there in some way that town council helps draft would be what I would prefer. I Yeah. I mean, I think you guys would have to vote on a finding just to have it in the record and state. I mean, we we can provide some additional information to council on why this is different and have

vote on a finding on why you would choose to do so. should the board choose to do that and kind of that kind of gets reflected in the decision and goes with the record on okay the memo the uh memorandum of understanding was approved in lie of a standard decommissioning bond for these reasons and we'll provide some additional information for council to take a look at with the updated and if that can be agreed to that would be great I mean just a thought but company history how long we've been here I And that's Tony's I think I think our outside council has some comment. Big big companies go out of business. We see that happen.

I'm just in the history as far as how long it's been here. And uh who knows? So, I think if if there's if anou needs to be worked on more, it sounds like, and like I said, this is my first interaction with this project, so excuse me if I'm, you know, misstating things that everyone already knows, but um it sounds like what you're trying to do can be done. Um, you know, I suggest that the applicant maybe provide some more information uh to the board and then I will let um Chris Heap know that this, you know, conversation took place and I think, you know, he'll be able to jump in and help and, you know, get the board to where you want to go.

Let's do that. Yep. Sounds like a plan. Mhm. So, so moved and it sounds like we need and it sounds like we need to keep the the hearing open for that additional information from you guys and from maybe our council would I I know a town council could just adjust the the decision draft. Yeah. But if there's more information that's going to be going into the record to formulate that decision draft the findings, we might want to keep it open just in case we need to put that in. I guess I'm questioning what more information you would be looking for there

in my it's to me it's whatever like if council feels they don't have enough to give that why is different in any form of that's Dave's hand yeah we came up in the conversation a time or two poss about possibly you amending or you you add adding adding or changing some language in the proposedou to cover some of the things that we talked about in this discussion. So, okay,

I think as far as I can tell the board has received all of the information that we need in order to complete a decision except for you know any further details that are worked out regarding theou itself. you know that you know just just reading theou again or the proposedou it talks about the end of the systems useful life under graft Wyman Gordon's ownership it doesn't address the potential transfer of ownership so um so so some some little you know some little fine details about that are maybe the kinds of things that can be worked out a bit in conversation with council just to make sure that

this covers the bases that we seem to think needed to be covered. Okay. If I may, I think part of what we want to do is in the decision that gets filed, we want to capture the distinction about why this circumstance is right for this decision. And then in the letter, I don't know what else what else were you saying to add to the letter itself because the the circumstance doesn't necessarily need to be in theou. Yeah. The only thing I guess mentioning is um you know if we sell the property, right? Yeah. If you sell the property that you'll you'll put the bond in when you sell. Well, if you lose the property,

well, not it's not it's not it's not see what I was thinking is is that if if Wyman Gordens transfers the property, sells the property or whatever that in the special permit which is filed in with the deed of the piece of property, it says in that that Wyman Gordens will decommission the solar fund at the transfer any transfer of that property. That's it. You don't need anything else. That's that's going to be in there. So, if they decide to sell or if they go out of business or they start to go out of business or whatever, they they are on the hook to decommission that solar farm

except if they go out of business and they don't have the resources to do it. But the the property would in all honesty bring more than right what it would cost to decommission that. It's it's it's to me it's a very it's a very simple thing just that's it. Yeah. The the property transfers in any way Wyman Gordens is responsible prior to the transfer to someone else to decommission the solar that include Wyman Gordon has already changed in that it's gone under well whatever whatever the current name of the company is I don't know well no it's it's still Wyman Gordon

generally speaking the the special permit is binding upon any successor to Wyman Gordon and that's a that's very very general term that and that's filed with the deed so you can't you can't get around it no yeah yeah and and I guess that's why the attorney said he wasn't really sure that there was the a need for a decommissioning bond in this case Right. So, so part part of part of what we're talking about is the decision has to justify the choice of this particular mechanism to covering decommissioning. You know what? And that's that's not necessarily us receiving any additional information. No. Um there's no bond required. And if

so analyzing some some language. Yeah, that's all it is. If if the uh it could very well be that theou as it stands it's written in terms of Wyman and Gordon uh decommissioning at the end of the systems use of the life but that in I think I think like you suggest Ray the if that's incorporated as part of the decision then that's binding upon any successor decommissioned at the end of its useful life or any transfer of the property out of the current name is on the the special permit and that's it. Not to argue this point to death, but but but

we're going to record it against the property. So So even if we sell the deed the little piece of it that that that commitment would transfer to the new owner. It would regardless of you know and how do we get the new owner to do it if No, it has to be done by Gordon prior to the transfer. So, what? No. Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is is is I I can't imagine a scenario where we would ever sell it. But I'm just saying um if it was if the property was transferred that obligation would go with the owner or to to the new owner and and regardless I mean commercial property values I I think would support the decommission of

the condition could just read you know should the you know a bond has to be put in place before the property yeah I'm happy to put that in there sold. So before Wyman can sell it, we'd have to come here, have a bond estimate reviewed, get the bond in place, and then the property could be sold. Ultimately, a transfer in ownership of the property, the the new owner might well want to keep that solar system in operation. So I wouldn't demand decommissioning upon sale of the property. Yeah. So you have the option to establish the bond in place or maybe it's you have the the option to establish it or decommission. So what what you do is is just as this gentleman just said,

you're going to sell the piece of property. The new owner has to come in here and say we understand Wyman Gordon has to decommission according to the special permit. It's on the deed. They have to decommission prior to the sale. We want to continue the solar farm. And then they come back to this board and then they go through the process. Hopefully not the process you guys have been going through, but but that's that's a very very simple. It's very simple. There's there are no bonds involved. There are no there's no there's no there's no numbers. Write it into the special permit and file it on the deed. Ray, why don't you work on this with her and them? I will.

So order. Yeah. So, so C can I ask one question? I promise it'll be the last. Um, sort of timing wise, I mean, obviously we're uh getting to the point of chomping at the bit to go. So, as we look at this in two weeks, would we would we have a potentially a draft decision that would include this where it could be voted on and approved to start the 20-day clock or That would be my hope. Okay. Be a whole I would expect that to be the case. Okay. We although to be picky, it's going to be three weeks. Our next meeting is scheduled three weeks from today. Three weeks. Okay. But that pickiness aside, yeah, I don't see any I don't see anything that would further delay it. Is it okay if we work with Yeah.

the planning office on Oh, absolutely. potentially outside council. Just wanted to make sure that was accepted. He's doing like at least two people's job. Um, three. Yeah, we don't have an assistant. And uh we have either we have Tony, do you have another? We have I don't think I covered this page yet, did I? Um I know that Natalya would appreciate having one of us, work with her, help her, tell it tell them what you'd like.

Basically, we have the decision. Fiona had done all a lot a lot of the work already. there's still um the public hearings sessions that to go over to make sure that all the findings and all the conditions from that are included and I just if we don't get um our contract planner in time to have a planning board member at least kind of look at it and make sure that didn't omit something the findings especially on the conditions that's so would a condition and this is me understand let let me go ahead a volunteer Sure. I'm generally available for something like that. I would happily defer to Dave.

Dave. Yep. You got it, Dave? Because I can help. I'll do whatever I can to help. Thank you. Between Dave and I include that in my make it so. Um, and you feel you feel your base is covered? Yes. I just have one question. Um, do we want anything still from town council to be included as an exhibit? I Well, as a final This is No, this is this was filed. Uh, you know, this is part of our what we have now. I I think that Tony has another comment.

Well, okay. Yeah, I was just going to say on that point generally, you know, without having read Chris's letter, but a general rule is, you know, the decision can kind of include everything it needs to include and you don't attach like a town council opinion letter to the back of it, right? Yeah. If that's the project page, if you had anything to add as an exhibit, otherwise we couldn't close the hearing, right?

Yeah. Yeah. I think it sounds like everything we've talked about in nailing down what we uh what our our discussion about the shity or lack thereof. Sounds like we ought to be able to handle all that in the drafting of the decision. No additional exhibits necessary. Yeah. Yeah, and I guess that was my question is and and I don't understand half of what I think I know about policy and things like that when it comes to this, but does is a conditional approval appropriate? Ask them because um um these are documents that were certainly a part of what we've been doing and um

yeah, you know, I think my the question is really if we whether we close the hearing we're not going to close the hearing today. That was my question. Yeah. Yeah. We e even though right now we maybe don't anticipate any additional exhibits since the decision can't be issued until our next meeting anyway. Keeping the hearing open just in case there are additional exhibits that come in. Yeah. Well, there's no it doesn't delay things at all. No, no. I I guess my question was more so would a conditional approval minus the working out the language be appropriate here? And and I I I'm asking about No, we don't decision. That's true.

That's true. Does anybody think this isn't going to get approved? Yeah. And one thing just to say just to say explicitly, you guys may already. I appreciate that. After the decision is recorded with the town clerk and everything, then it's Yeah. And it was that does start the appeals clock bution you guys may be a may choose to begin some of the basic work if the an appeal or stay happens of some sort you return it to how it was before you did it. So it's a it's a gamble. Sure. But it doesn't you may not have to wait that long to start the work if you just if you so choose. I'll bet I'll bet they know that. I bet they know that too.

Um I told Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Wasn't quite framed that way, but yes. Yeah. It would it would come down to um somebody appealing and um on what basis. So, what is the next step? A continuence. Um it sounds like the next step is a continuence. Um staff with assistance from a certain board member will uh attempt to uh complete a draft decision uh also with consultation with council on the applicant on whatever aspects of that need to be addressed and Mr. Me can also help if he so chooses. Yes, Ray volunteer to help. I will come around.

So all right. Um, so you want to request uh do we have a form? Okay. Is a he's about to sign a form. Yes. Request. We'd like to request a continuence to the next scheduled public hearing. And there will be some paperwork that you can I will move. Yeah, Natalya's got the paperwork there. I will move that the board grant the applicants written request which is about to be received by the board to continue this hearing to Monday, April 13th, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. Second. Moved and second. Is there any discussion?

You said April 13th. It says April 6th. My meeting schedule says April 6th. I don't know why, but is usually the second April 13th is the second Monday of April. But the list the schedule says April 6th on the website. Yeah, the schedule on the website says April 6th. Ah well I don't know about that. I have it on mine is the 13th. Um maybe the 2020 schedule says April 6th. Why would we have scheduled it for April 6th? It doesn't make sense because the 20th is a April 20th is a holiday.

Y more often than not the let's see it our list says April 6th and April 20th. If if you go to the 8th then the next meeting is one two three weeks away. Right? So there's a three week span one way or the other. And I say um either the 6th or the 13th of the meeting on the 13th. Why don't you go both nights? We have to be say hi then. I we have to be state specific for a continuence because time and date specific and our

well our online calendar that says our meeting schedule says April 6. Yes. If that's the if the meeting schedule we adopted around the end of last year, if that meeting schedule that we voted on says April 6th and that's then that's that would be the date. Yeah. I I can't remember why that was Yes. I'm I'm not sure there is a We could reschedu it because all I would do have to do is just change the change. It was up to you guys. Yeah, we say it at the sixth because that's the next scheduled meeting. So according to what's on Mr. Robert, do you want to make a correct motion?

The motion is amended to use the date of April 6th, which is our next officially scheduled meeting. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion hearing none. All in favor? I opposed. So voted. I guess every topic needs a long discussion tonight. Thanks for your time and consideration. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Appreciate it.

Yeah. Why did we schedule for April 20th? That's That's a What is the holiday? That's Patriots Day. That's Patriots. No, nobody's scheduled for the 20th. That's our made up holiday instead. Oh, is that because it was marathon maritime? Yeah, I know. I thought vacation time. So, I'm not sure how Patriots Well, if it's Patriots Day, when is Patriots Day? April 20th. 20th. Just one second. Okay. So, so we we move 27th. We moved the All right. So, and there was also

there's also a legal notice for April 6th. So, we can't change that date. What's that? There is a legal notice posted for April 6th. So, we are you talking about the town clerk's thing? The Abby Wood subdivision off Cow Road 46 2026. Yep. So, we can't change that date. But if the board wishes to change from April 20th to 3 weeks from our sixth date, which is April 27th, we can take a vote to do that now. Well, I have it on here. I have it on here that we are scheduled for the 27th. I do not the that is the this is the one two three fourth Monday of the month which is when I understand but the the meeting website has the dates of April 6th and April 20th. Yep.

And then May 4th. That's the calendar that the board voted to adopt because the town meeting probably got adjusted because of the town meeting on the 11th. Well, we always Yeah. Yeah. I'm baffled. So, well, you could probably So, bottom line, wish to meet. The sixth is good. We'll see you on the sixth. Six. Sixth is correct. Could you make sure that when somebody figures all this out, send let me know. Send send me a note. Do we to both my email addresses? One might get through. Who knows? So your your title could Okay. Well, yes.

Move along here. Are we okay? I don't believe we're I just can't believe it. Additional I mean, it's only been twice as long as I told Linda already. Yeah. All right. Bills. There's a bill. Move the board authorize payment of the bill. Second. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion. Hearing none. All in favor? I oppose. So voted. Staff report.

Um well, okay. So I can give a little bit of a brief one. The planning director's position was advertised, as you all know. Um the status update from Evan is that there are no viable candidates as of today and that we are currently in the initial advertising period. Um Fiona did put in a request to obtain the services of a previous contract u planner that we had Eve from planners in a pinch if you recall. I'm not sure of the exact status of that is so the first week since our planning director has been gone was very hectic as you can imagine. uh most of the time I was spent fielding phone calls, emails, countering counter inquiries and familiarizing myself with the status and the upcoming um requirements of various projects and grants. So this morning also was the final day for submitting RFP proposals for the Fisherville pond dam design and permitting project. The bid opening will probably take place tomorrow. And another thing is um Central Mass Regional Planning Commission Joe Zabowski has been sending out requests to the various town departments to review content in the permitting guide from uh for their departments. The edits and responses are due approximately April 6th. There's a walkthrough scheduled for Woodland Hills with Graves Engineering, the applicant, and various town staff that will probably take place. Um right now we're scheduling it for April 2nd. It's expected that a determination of completion review will be before the board in the near future for road acceptance probably in the October town meeting.

That's quick. What's that? So that's quick, but if it's ready, it's ready. Yeah. High Fields of Grafton uh subdition may also be submitting a determination of completion review in the upcoming months. So that may also be uh be able to make it for October. We'll see. And right now there are probably about two incoming special permanent applications, one of which may be our very first ADU site plan review. And there's other projects, but um and if you have any questions for next time, any update on any other projects or grants.

Um Mr. Dothany did bring up at the EDC meeting last week. I guess this could be considered a board report, but regarding the old Burger King pepperoni express property that I guess there's activity there. Have they has there been any movement on permitting or um or timelines thereof that you know are aware of? There's been inquiries on whether it would um be grandfathered or not. I know that and I can check into further Okay. status on that if you want. Well, Grant, it's underwater.

It's expired. Have to take a boat to get through the drive-thru. I guess what I I think I think we put it up on stilts. You drive up a ramp to the drive-thru. What I heard was that we likely demolish and rebuild and significant retaining wall work. Yeah. Where is the wetland now? I don't know where that delineation is, but I Well, if there's water Yeah. the groundwater is very high in that area. Yes, I know. It's higher than it used to be. either that or the in spite of the 500 telephone poles or whatever it was

they were pilings which wouldn't apparently wooden pilings hold up big bridges. Um it you know it it is a if done right it it should work. So, I I'm not sure whether the water got higher or the building got lower, but somehow there's water in the building now. And um changing that. We'll see what We'll see if anything comes of that. Yes. Yeah. I'm Did anybody notice that someone thinks um the state police barracks property 4 acres or so is supposed to be put up for sale by the state? Had heard that?

Haven't heard that. I saw it on I saw it on social media today. So it must be true. That must be authoritative. Yeah. Well, somebody was interested in what about the 30 day whatever it is 30 acres of town land adjacent to it behind going back to the railroad that you'll probably remember. Yeah. Something about conservation restriction.

Yeah. That to my knowledge that land is not under any conservation restriction. Uh, and I'm pretty sure I'm remembering it correctly because I included that in the inventory of all town owned land and open space that I developed for the open space open space and recreation plan. So that's Yeah, the town owns it. It's not restricted at this point. It doesn't have any conservation restriction. It has wetlands. Uh, no, but conservation, but no, no, no deed restrictions because one of the AIS told me it was under conservation and you know, I don't know whether it was uh

Well, if it is, there's no record of that at the registry of deeds. Well, okay. Uh, I'm I'm not sure whether chat GTP went to the um All right. Uh, let's see. Correspond. So, that's staff correspondence. Um I heard staff got something what today from something that was about Sutton. Yeah.

Oh yeah. There was a request for comment. These go these go out to the towns all the time I think but we don't or we haven't been seeing them. I I think a lot of them go in our correspondence. you see you know city of Worcester or or um you know whichever town it is um an announcement of a hearing or whatever um and that's all that all that we do with it. Um this has something to do with struck me it was in the middle of the town. Yeah, the quite a ways from us.

The project in question is kind of at the corner of Boston Road and Route 146. It's a Chipotle restaurant adjacent to the shopping center where Market 32 and various other businesses are located. Is it in the Market 32 or is it on It's It's Abuts Boston or Abuts 146 and it's just a little bit south of Boston Road there, but it's on that side of 146 where the two is. Well, okay. Well, okay. There's another road that runs in between that at Pleasant. It's one end of Pleasant Valley Road is in there, right? Except doesn't go across anymore.

I I know where Davis. Anyway, um the board has if if anybody has anything you want us to say, speak up. Could you just send it out to us so we can see what it says, please? I don't hear any u anything on that. Um, planning reports from planning board reps on town committees and CMRPC.

So, I have a CPC meeting this week, but I actually just got an email that is probably worth just mentioning briefly. Let's find it real quick. Not zoom. Basically, we're getting less money from the state than we expected for next coming year. is the bottom line. Um why am I not surprised?

We are the state told us to to put a calculated budget of 15.5% instead of what we had previously calculated and have been going by state recommendations of 16.9%. So the the match is basically a point and a half less. And back in the day it was 100% are long gone. Well, that was to get it in, right? Yeah.

Yeah. Any anything else? Um, I will I will report on my attendance at the CPTC annual conference this past Saturday at Holy Cross. Um, couple couple things of interest that I, you know, the sessions I sit in. One, which connects to the social media rumor that you mentioned, Bob, is that the state is starting a program of selling off state land specifically for housing. And I, as I sat through that, I thought it was interesting. I didn't I I nothing occurred to me at the top of my head of any property in Grafton that might be interesting or relevant to that. But the state police museum, former state police museum is owned by the state and the state decides to uh sell it for housing. The way the process will work is the the state will either solicit RFPs or put it up for auction. Either way, the condition is that this property be used strictly for housing. So, that's a state program that they're just starting on. They they mentioned a few a few properties that they're that are currently in process, but uh that it's conceivable that the state police former state police barracks could end up being part of this program. Um so that was just you know that's one one point of interest that potentially relevant to Griff. And the other more interesting session I sat in on was the uh consolidated solar permitting which would apply to a project like what we were just reviewing this evening. It's basically for any solar project under 25 megawws

which is the majority of solar project solar farms that are being built or proposed. the the state has said is setting up a consolidated permitting process which means the applicant files a single permit application which goes to all of the boards that would review it. So typically a single permit application would come in at Grafton and it would it would go to the planning board conservation commission. Those are the two most likely places for it to go. Uh so each board continues its own review of it but it's a single permit application and the town must complete action on it approval or deny within 12 months. Now what's interesting for this is that the 12-month clock does not start until the town has deemed that the application is complete. So, an incomplete application that can go back and forth between the town and the 12-month start doesn't start. The 12-month clock starts only when the town determines that the application is complete. So, it's not it's not based on the filing date. It's based on the date we determine it's complete, which I think is entirely appropriate. Sometimes we seem we feel like we're under the gun because, you know, we keep asking for more information. The idea here is the applicant needs to provide complete information at the beginning of the process before they can count on getting their permit within 12 months. Uh it's different from the 40B comprehensive permit process where in graft the zoning board covers all the different

boards permits. So this is and the other thing about the consolidated permit process is that's kind of important is that before even filing the permit application with the town the applicant is required to conduct various outreach and public information you know so again the idea is to is to get a lot of the the public comment and input up front to have an application that's ready for the boards to go on and then We have 12 months. It a bit like expedited permitting under 43D. As far as what the town has to do with this to get ready for it is we are required to begin begin accepting these consolidated permits on October 1st. And uh unless we choose otherwise, the town administrator is the entity in the town that that receives those permits initially. You know, there there there's a lot of you other things potentially that that things that can be changed. We're not required to make any zoning changes to make this work. But there is a whole new application process that we have we have to be able to receive the applications, review them for completeness, and then get the applications before the various boards. There's more information to come on this. I know Fiona told me that, you know, some staff folks at CMRPC are working on this to help the towns prepare for it. I'm just wondering, you're saying a combined application, the application requirements for the planning board are different than the application requirements for conservation and whatever other boards.

Does this in any way alter any of that? or does this consolidated application have to include everything that we all want?

Yeah, I think the intent is for the consolid consolidated application to include everything that all the boards are going to need. the the details. Um I don't I don't think the state has yet come out with you the details of what exactly they're going to be asking in the consolidated applica consolidated consolidated application. But that's certainly something that we're going to want to pay attention to by the time it goes into effect. We would like to we would like to be confident that everything's aligned with what we currently do. Is that a law or is that some administrative action that some part of the state government is trying to take? It's a law

and it's passed. Yes, the law has been passed. I haven't heard of Okay. law has been passed. Regulations have been written. Guidelines are in the process of being developed. Okay. Uh the the guidelines cover a lot of the technical details. For example, the guidelines mention shity for decommissioning. Well, okay. Well, let let well well do they say that you have to do that? What do they say about that? Do they change anything that

Well, let's see. I made a note of that one. the guidelines and then so far there's still draft draft guidelines but ah they require and I think the public comment period on the draft guidelines has been completed. What do they say? But they require cash, bond, letter of credit, escrow or another form of shity reasonably acceptable to the local government. Okay, that fits reasonably with what we were just doing. Yeah, I think so. Any anything else? Anybody? I don't think there's any We don't need to go past 10. Um I don't think there's anything else that lawfully can come before us.

I move we adjourn. I'll second that. Moved and second. It's not debatable. All in favor? I opposed. So voted. Good night, Irene.