Mendon planning board tables 90 Acres barn application, asks for updated site plan

A Mendon Planning Board meeting called to order at 7:00 tabled the special‑use permit application from Doug Osowski, owner of 90 Acres at 4287 Clover Street, after members said they needed an updated site plan showing the barn footprint, orientation, utilities and parking.

The board opened a public hearing on the application and heard from Osowski, who said he plans to move the proposed barn about 50 to 60 feet closer to the road (from roughly 460 feet to about 400 feet), to place retail in the new building and to use the existing structure for storage. Osowski told the board that final dimensions are still being finalized with an architect, citing estimates that ranged in the meeting from a 52-by-40 figure noted in the application to possible footprints near 32-by-56 or smaller. "Has everybody seen the map? It's probably the easiest way to describe it," Osowski said while describing the proposed relocation of the building.

Board members and staff pressed for precise, mapped information. Don, speaking for the board's staff/attorney, asked whether the new municipal water and natural gas service would stop at the barn or be extended to the two existing high tunnels; Osowski said the intention is to feed the utilities into those structures as well. The applicant also confirmed the site will continue to use the property's existing septic system, which he said is currently sized for a two‑bedroom dwelling.

Members cited code constraints and local buffers in their review. The board noted that town code section 260-96B directs the board to establish rules for its business and that New York agriculture law limits unreasonable regulation of farms absent a demonstrated public-health or safety threat; the Historic Preservation Commission had also recommended grandfathering the new barn under pre‑August 2025 E‑pod 5 limits, saying the applicant had steadily implemented a 10‑year plan and that the proposed barn would be farther from the Livermore historic home than the existing store.

The board debated two paths: a conditional approval (so the applicant can pursue financing) with conditions requiring submission of precise site-plan drawings showing the footprint, entrances, utilities and parking; or delaying action until the applicant submits a professionally updated plan. One planning board member said, "I recommend approving it with conditions," while others said they would prefer to see the exact footprint and utility locations before granting final approval.

After discussion the board voted to table the application until the applicant supplies an updated site plan that shows building dimensions and orientation, exact setback distance from the property line, entrances, utilities and parking count. The board asked that the updated plan either be a marked, corrected version of the existing file or a digital drawing from the applicant's architect to avoid unnecessary expense and delay. The motion to table was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.

The board also advised the applicant to coordinate with the water authority on tap sizing (1‑inch vs 2‑inch options were discussed) and to verify easements for running public utilities, and reminded him that full permitting for any future living quarters would require separate building permits and compliance with applicable size thresholds. The board set the expectation that the applicant return with the requested materials at a future meeting so the special‑use permit can be revisited.